Komentarz do Edujot 3:17

כל המטמאין באוהל – such as the dead, and the decayed matter (i..e., liquid and coagulated portions of a corpse – see Tractate Ohalot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1) and a spoonful of dust [of earth from a grave of decaying human body], and all those that are taught at the beginning of the second chapter of Tractate Ohalot.

Introduction The first six mishnayoth of this chapter contain ten disputes between Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the Sages.

שנחלקו – their measures in halves.

This is a complicated mishnah, which requires the knowledge of some rules before we begin to explain the details. 1) A corpse causes impurity in three ways: a) by contact, b) by being carried; c) by being under the same roof-space, referred to as a tent. 2) Certain parts of a dead body impart impurity even though there is not a full corpse. 3) In order for a part of a corpse to impart impurity it must have a minimum measure the size of an olive. 4) Tent impurity is contracted in three ways: i) If a corpse, or part thereof, is found under a roof structure, anything under that roof structure is impure. ii) If the corpse, or part thereof, is above a person or vessel, the corpse imparts impurity. iii) If the person or vessel is above the corpse, the person and vessel are impure. Our mishnah discusses the ability of two pieces of a corpse, that are smaller than an olive, to join together and make a piece of corpse larger than an olive and transmit impurity in different situations.

שהכניסן – when they are divided.

[In the case of] all things which cause defilement in a “tent”, if they [the pieces of the corpse] were divided and brought into the house, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces [everything under the same roof-space] clean, but the Sages pronounce it unclean. This is an introduction to the mishnah. Here we learn that if two pieces of a dead body smaller than an olive but together the size of an olive are found under one roof, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinos declares that they do not join to impart impurity and the Sages declare that they do join.

לתוך הבית – that is inside one tent.

How so? He who touches as much as two halves of an olive [in quantity] of an animal’s carcass or carries them; or in the case of a [human] corpse, he who touches as much as half an olive and stands over as much as half an olive; or touches as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him; or if he stands over as much as two halves of an olive; or if he stands over as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas pronounces him clean, and the Sages pronounce him unclean. The mishnah now goes over all of the different examples in which the Sages and Rabbi Dosa dispute. A. If one touches or carries two separate pieces of a dead animal, each the size of half an olive. Note that there is no tent impurity caused by dead animals, and therefore this example mentions only carrying and contact. B. If one touches a piece of corpse the size of half an olive and makes a tent, over another piece the same size (rule 4iii above). C. A person forms a tent over two half-olive size pieces of a corpse. D. A person forms a tent over one half-olive size piece of corpse and one half-olive size piece of corpse forms a tent over him. In all of these case Rabbi Dosa declares that the pieces of corpse do not join together.

רבי דוסא בן הרכינס מטהר – that he holds that they do not combine to the appropriate measurement.

But if he touches as much as half an olive [in quantity] and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive; or if he stood over as much as half an olive and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive, he is clean. In this section are listed two cases where the Sages would agree with Rabbi Dosa that he is pure. A. If one touches a half-olive size piece of corpse and something else forms a tent over him and a half-olive size piece, he is still pure. B. If one forms a tent over a half-olive size piece of corpse, and something else forms a tent over him and another half-olive size piece of corpse, he is still pure. The reason why in this case the Sages declare him pure is that the two types of impurity are of a different nature. When something forms a tent over a person and a piece of corpse that is considered to be tent impurity, whereas when a person forms a tent over a piece of corpse or a piece of corpse forms a tent over him, that is considered contact impurity. In the cases in section two, there were two kinds of contact impurity; hence the two half-olives joined to transmit impurity. In the cases in section three, one piece of corpse transmitted tent impurity and the other contact impurity. Hence the Sages agree that he is pure.

הנוגע בכשני חצאי זיתים מן הנבילה – he started about tent impurity and continued with impurity of a carrion, to tell you that just as Rabbi Dosa holds that they do not combine for the defilement of a tent, so too, he holds that they defilement of contact and carrying do not combine, whether with the dead person or a carrion.

Rabbi Meir said: “Also in this case Rabbi Dosa pronounces him clean and the sages pronounce him unclean. In all such cases a man is unclean unless there is an act of touching and also an act of carrying, or an act of carrying and also [the fact of] being under the same roof-space.” Rabbi Meir holds that even in these cases the Sages would declare the person impure, and Rabbi Dosa would say he is pure. Rabbi Meir explains that according to the Sages tent impurity and contact impurity do join. The only type of impurity that does not join is contact impurity with carrying impurity.

הנוגע בחצי זית ומאהיל על חצי זית – When one overshadows on a dead person, he is impure as if he had been with the dead person in the tent. And all of these where he is overshadowing in the first part of the Mishnah, we are speaking of squeezed defilement, for there is no difference between the defilement and the tent that is open a hand-breadth, and because of this, the Sages defile, for a tent like this, it is contact, and at the end of the Mishnah it is taught that if one is in contact with half-olive’s bulk and another thing, it overshadows upon him, etc., and the Rabbis admit that he is pure, when speaking where there is a hand-breadth’s opening whether between the defilement and the tent. And in this, the Rabbis admit that they don’t combine, for contact and tent are two different modes of contamination and whatever is from two different modes does not combine. But Rabbi Dosa holds that even with pressed defilement, they don’t combine.

This is the general rule: in whatever case the means of causing defilement are of one category, he is unclean; if they are of two categories, he is clean.” This is a general rule that summarizes the whole mishnah. Any time there are two pieces of corpse transmitting impurity, they join only if they are transmitting a type of impurity with the same name. According to Rabbi Dosa none of the three types of impurity, tent, carrying and contact join together. According to the first version of the Sages opinion, contact and tent impurity do not join. According to Rabbi Meir, contact and tent impurity join but carrying and contact impurity and carrying and tent impurity do not join. Congratulations! You just learned a very difficult mishnah. If you couldn’t follow all the details do not despair. This was probably one of the most complicated mishnayoth we have seen yet.

רבי מאיר וכו' – Rabbi Meir disputes the first Tanna who said that when there is a hand-breadth’s opening between the defilement and the tent, the Rabbis admit that he is pure, and it doesn’t combine. And he said that even in this, the Rabbis dispute on Rabbi Dosa and hold that contact and the tent category. Therefore, they combine regarding the measurement and defile, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

חוץ מן המגע עם המשא – such as the case where he came in contact with one-half an olive’s bulk and shook one-half an olive’s bulk.

והמשא עם האוהל – that he shook one-half an olive’s bulk and overshadowed on the other one-half.

משם אחד – such one type of contact and another kind, one kind of carrying and another, one tent and another tent.

אוכל פרוד – such as a pile of nuts, peanuts and almonds, when they are separated one from the other, they lack the equivalent of an egg which is the measure for defilment of foods to defile others.

Food which is in separate pieces does not combine together [to receive impurity], according to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. But the Sages say: “It does combines together.” For food to become impure it must be the size of an egg. According to Rabbi Dosa food which is broken up into pieces smaller than the size of an egg does not join to receive impurity, whereas according to the Sages it does.

אינו מצטרף – and if they were ritually impure and came in contact with ritually pure [foods] when they are in a pile, they do not combine with each other to defile the pure [foods] since there isn’t among any of them on its own like the measure for the defiling of foods.

One may exchange [ produce of] second tithe for uncoined metal, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “One may not so exchange it.” The second tithe may be redeemed with money and brought to Jerusalem. According to Rabbi Dosa one may redeem this second tithe even with a coin that does not have a stamp upon it. According to the Sages it must have a stamp. This is learned from Deuteronomy 14:25, which says “money” in connection with second tithe.

אסימון – it is made like the form of the coin in vogue, but they had not yet formulated the coin (i.e., a picture indicating the value), and we don’t redeem Second Tithe with it, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:25): “Wrap up the money n your hand,” something that has upon it a form.

The hands [alone] need to be immersed for the waters of purification according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “If his hands have become unclean his whole body becomes unclean.” A person whose hands have become impure by touching impure food (but not a corpse, which would cause impurity to the whole body), need only wash his hands before touching the waters of purification which are used to purify someone who has contracted corpse impurity. This is according to Rabbi Dosa. The Sages disagree and say that with regards to touching waters of purification, if his hands are impure his whole body is impure. To become pure he would need to take a ritual bath (mikveh).

מטבילין ידים לחטאת – Whomever has come in contact with impure food-stuffs and liquids and similar thing from those things that defile the hands and don’t defile the entire body, he immerses his hands only, and it is fit to com in contact with the waters of purification (i.e., water mixed with the ashes of the Red Heifer) and to be sprinkled from the ashes of the [Red] Heifer on the impurity.

אם נטמאו ידיו נטמא גופו – and it requires immersion of the entire body, for they made a preference for the waters of purification that if his hands had been defiled, his entire body was defiled, which is not the case with Priest’s Due/Terumah and Holy Things [in the Temple].

מעי אבטיח – the seeds and the liquid that is within the melon.

The insides of a melon and the discarded leaves of a vegetable of terumah: Rabbi Dosa permits [their] use to non-priests, and the Sages forbid it. Terumah, one of the agricultural offerings, may be eaten only by priests. According to Rabbi Dosa, the parts of terumah produce that are not commonly eaten are permitted to non-priests. Since these are not considered food, and the laws of terumah are only applicable to food, these things may be eaten by non-priests. The Sages forbid this. Presumably, according to the Sages since people do occasionally eat these things, the laws of terumah apply to them as well.

וקניבת ירק – the mouldy/decayed leaves that we remove from the vegetables.

Five ewes, their fleeces weighing each a mina and a half, are subject to [the law of] the first of the fleece, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “Five ewes [are subject] whatever [their fleeces weigh].” According to Deuteronomy 18:4, the first shearings of a sheep must be given to the priest. In our mishnah Rabbi Dosa and the Sages disagree about the minimum weight of the fleeces of the sheep which would cause them to be subject to these laws. According to Rabbi Dosa a person is not liable to give these shearings to the priest unless he has five female sheep and each fleece weighs a mina and a half, about 150 grams. Less than this is not even considered “shearings”. The Sages disagree. According to them as long as five female sheep are sheared, he must give the first shearings to the priest, no matter what the weight of the wool.

מנה מנה ופרס (this segment of the Mishnah is also taught in Tractate Hullin, Chapter 11, Mishnah 2) – Each one is worth a Maneh and one-half and less than this is not considered fleece/shorn wool for this is the least of the fleece.

כל שהן – not exactly for less than sixth Selah the Rabbis do not obligated in the first shorn wood (which is the priest’s gift), but because Rabbi Dosa provides a large measurement, the Tannah calls for the small measurement of the Rabbis, however much they produce. And the weight of the Sela is twenty-four Ma’im and the weight of each M’ah is sixteen globules of barley-seed.s

חולצות – matting that is made from bulrushes/reed-grass and things similar to it. And they have a rim surrounding it.

All mats are [liable to become] impure by “corpse” impurity, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “[Also by] “midras” impurity. Rabbi Dosa and the Sages disagree with regards to the susceptibility of mats to midras impurity. Midras impurity is a type of impurity which is received by a zav sitting or lying down on an object. Only things that are typically sat on or lied down upon can receive this type of impurity. According to Rabbi Dosa, mats can receive corpse impurity by coming into contact with a dead body, or a part thereof. However, since the mats under discussion are not used for sitting or for lying down, they cannot receive midras impurity. The Sages hold that they can, since they are occasionally used for such a purpose.

טמאות טמא מת – for they have a receptacle but defilement of lying and sitting, because they are not appropriate for lying nor for sitting.-

All network is unsusceptible to impurity except a [network] girdle, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “They are all liable to uncleanness, except those used by wool dealers [for carrying raw wool].” Network, things made of nets (not computer networks, which I suppose cannot receive impurity), are not considered by Rabbi Dosa to be clothing and therefore they cannot receive impurity. As we learned on several occasions, only things that are formed vessels or clothing can receive impurity. Since network is not really clothing, it cannot receive impurity. The only exception to this rule about things made of nets is a type of girdle which is a piece of clothing and therefore can be made impure. The Sages disagree. They hold that network is considered clothing. The only exception is a bag used by wool dealers to hold wool. Since this is definitely not clothing it cannot be made impure.

וחכמים אומרים מדרס – for they are also suitable to be lain upon.

Questions for Further Thought:
• We have now learned several disputes between Rabbi Dosa and the Sages. Do you seen any consistency to their opinions?
• Mishnah four: What modern items might be similar to the mats and network under discussion in this mishnah?

הקליעות – threats that are made in a matting/network.

טהורות – that are not considered woven/in a web and this is not clothing.

חוץ משל גלגילון – screens/networks of belt that they gird with it, and it is considered clothing.

כולם טמאות – for all are considered clothing, except for the screens that those who sell wool make to tie on it bundles of wool.

קלע – [the sling] that they throw with it stones, like you say (Judges 20:16): “ [Of all this force- 700 picked men -were left handed.] Every one of them could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.” (1 Samuel 25:29): ”But he will fling away the lives of your enemies as from the hollow of a sling.”

A sling whose pocket is woven is susceptible to impurity. If it is of leather, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces it susceptible to impurity, and the Sages pronounce it not susceptible to impurity. If its finger-hold is broken off, it is not susceptible to impurity; [But if the] string-handle [only] is broken off it is susceptible to impurity. This mishnah discusses when a sling is considered usable and therefore liable to receive impurity. If the pocket is woven, all agree that it is liable to receive impurity. However, if it is of leather, Rabbi Dosa hold that it may not receive impurity. This is based on two rules: 1) a strip of leather must be five handbreadths wide by five handbreadths long in order to receive impurity. Since a sling is not this large, it does not receive impurity due to its size and significance. 2) Rabbi Dosa does not consider the sling to be a “vessel” which inherently is receptive to impurity. The Sages disagree. They hold that a sling is inherently a vessel and therefore the pouch receives impurity no matter what it is made out of and no matter what size its pouch is. If the finger-hold is broken off the sling is unusable, and therefore cannot receive impurity. However, if the string-handle, which is attached to the pouch and is pulled back to throw the rock which is in the sling, is broken, the sling can still receive impurity, since it can be used.

בית קיבול שלה – the place where they put in the stone that they want to throw.

בית אצבע שלה – like a small hole that one puts one’s finger into.

בית הפקיע – the handle that one holds on to when one twirls the sling in the air to release and throw the stone.

שבויה – the wife of a Kohen who was taken captive (also, the daughter of a Kohen).

A female captive may eat of terumah, according to the words of Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas. But the Sages say: “There is a female captive who may eat, and there is a female captive who may not eat. How is this so? The woman who said: ‘I was taken captive but [nonetheless] I am pure’, she may eat; because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit. But if there are witnesses [who declare] that she was made a captive, and she says: ‘[nonetheless] I am pure’, she may not eat.” This mishnah discusses a woman who was married to a priest or an unmarried daughter of a priest who is taken captive. These two types of women, prior to having been taken captive, could certainly have eaten terumah. According to the halakhah, a woman who has had sexual relations, even against her will, with someone with whom it is forbidden to do so, can no longer eat terumah. The issue in our mishnah is, do we assume that a woman who was taken captive by a non-Jew was raped by the non-Jew and therefore can no longer eat terumah. According to Rabbi Dosa, we do not make such an assumption, and she may continue to eat terumah unless there is evidence that she has been raped. According to the Sages, this is not always true. Her ability to eat terumah will depend on the circumstances in which the court found out that she had been taken captive. If she came in front of the court and stated that she had been taken captive but that she was still pure, i.e. she had not been violated by the captor, she may continue to eat terumah. This is due to a legal principle known as “the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit”. It means that if a person makes a statement that is to his own detriment and then makes another related statement to his benefit, he is believed in both statements. Since he could have said nothing, and thereby not aroused any suspicion about himself, he is believed when he exculpates himself from that suspicion. For instance, if Reuven says to Shimon, “this piece of land of mine used to be your father’s but now he sold it to me.” Reuven is admitting that the land he owns was not always his, but he also says that he bought it. Telling Shimon that it was his father’s is “forbidding” it and stating that he bought it is “permitting” it. In our case, if the woman says that she was taken captive, she has “forbidden” herself by creating a suspicion that she may have had relations with the captor. When she says that she did not she is believed. However, if there are witnesses who testify that she had been taken captive, then when she denies having been violated by the captor, she is not believed. Since she did not “forbid” but rather the witnesses did, the rule of “the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permit” is not applicable here.

אוכלת בתרומה – and we don’t suspect lest a heathen came upon her and made her a harlot nad invalidated her from the Terumah/priest’s due.

שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר (this section of the Mishnah is taught in Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5) – just as they believed her when she said: “I had been taken captive,” so one is able to believe her when she says, “and I am pure.

הטמא עומד – the leper stands under the tent or under the tree.

Introduction Mishnayoth seven and eight both list cases in which one Sage declares something pure and the other Sages declare it impure.

וטהור עובר – on the way there (i.e., to the tent or tree). It is doubtful if he came in contact or did not come in contact [with it] or if he was overshadowed by the tree or was overshadowed by both of them and both the pure became impure, and it is doubtful if he was not overshadowed and not defiled, this is one doubt or the pure one stood and the leper passed by, which is the second doubt.

Four cases of doubt Rabbi Joshua pronounces impure, and the Sages pronounce them pure. How is this so? If the impure person stands and the pure person passes by him; or if the pure person stands and the impure person passes by him; or if impurity is in the private domain and something pure is in the public domain; Or if something pure is in the private domain and something impure is in the public domain; If it is doubtful [in all of these case] whether one touched or did not touch the other, or if it is doubtful whether one formed a tent over the other or did not form a tent over the other, or if it is doubtful whether one moved or did not move the other Rabbi Joshua pronounces such a case impure, and the Sages pronounce it pure. In this mishnah are listed four situations in which there is a doubt whether or not the pure person was touched by the impure person, or one of them formed a tent over the other (which would cause impurity to be transmitted, even without contact) or one of them moved the other (which would also transmit impurity, even without contact). In all of these situations Rabbi Joshua rules that the previously pure person is now impure, whereas the Sages hold that he is still pure. The cases are: i + ii) A case where one of the people is moving and one is stationary. In this case Rabbi Joshua pronounces the person impure due to the general rule that doubtful cases of impurity which occur in the private domain are ruled impure. The Sages say that he is pure. Although there is a general rule that doubtful cases of impurity that occur in the private domain are ruled impure, this is true only when the pure and the impure are either both moving or both stationary. If their status is different, then the rule is not applicable. iii + iv) The pure and impure are in different domains, one in the public domain and one in the private domain. According to Rabbi Joshua, since at least one of the two is in the private domain, he is impure, due to the above mentioned rule. According to the Sages, since one is in the public domain, the rule that doubtful cases of impurity in the private domain does not apply.

טומאה ברשות היחיד וטהרה ברשות הרבים – such as a store open to the public domain, it is doubtful if he entered and it is doubtful if he did not enter.

או שטהרה ברשות היחיד והטומאה ברשות הרבים – these are two other doubtful cases.

רבי יהושע מטמא – as he holds that since the private domain is combined/joint in the doubtfulness of this defilement, this is a doubtful defilement in the private domain and its doubtfulness is defiled.

וחכמים מטהרים – for they hold that since a doubtful defilement in the public domain is combined in it, this is doubtful defilement in the public domain and its doubtfulness is pure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

מסמר השולחני – the money-changer hangs on it the scale of the balance. But our Rabbis explained that it was a fixed nail/pin set in the stand that is in front of the money-changer to put up the shutters of the shop. And the Rabbis make them pure because its use is with the ground.

Introduction Mishnah eight contains another case in which one Sage declares something pure and the other Sages declare it impure.

אבן השעות – a stone which has zones and markings on them the names of the hours which is inserted in it with a nail and through it they determine the hours. And in a foreign tongue, they call it IRLIVE and in Arabic ALBALATA.

Three things Rabbi Zadok pronounces [liable to receive] impurity and the Sages pronounce them not [liable to receive]: The nail of the money-changer; And the chest of grist makers; And the nail of a stone dial. Rabbi Zadok pronounces [liable to receive] impurity and the Sages pronounce them not [liable to receive]. Rabbi Zadok and the Sages disagree with regards to the liability of three items to receive impurity. Again, in order to receive impurity something must be considered “a vessel”, which in the Mishnah can include any manmade usable object which a has a specified purpose to it. According to Rabbi Zadok the items listed in our mishnah fit the definition of “vessel” whereas according to the Sages, they do not. The items are: 1) The nail of a money-changer. According to Maimonides, this was the nail used to hang the scales that the money-changer would use to weigh the money. 2) The chest used by a grist-maker to store the grist. Others explain that this is the nail of a chest used by a grist-maker, which is used to attach the chest to a wagon to bring the grist to market. If this is the correct explanation, then our mishnah lists three different types of nails. 3) The nail used to measure time in a sundial.

וארון של גרוסות – that makes pounded beans with their millstone, they have a sort of wooden cabinet.

ר' צדוק מטמא – this cabinet, for it has the status of a utensil on it.

וחכמים מטהרין – for a wooden utensil is make to stand and it is not make to carry. But Rabbi Tzadok held, that sometimes we repair it to carry it, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Tzadok.

טני – a metal utensil that householders place in it broken wares/trash and broken metal utensils. And Rabban Gamaliel defiles the cover/lid for he holds that the lid is considered and utensil, since the lid also has a receptacle. But the Sages [declare it] pure, as they hold that since it was not made other than to cover it, it is not considered a utensil.

Four things Rabban Gamaliel pronounces susceptible to impurity, and the Sages pronounce them not susceptible to impurity.
The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders;
And the hanger of a strigil;
And metals vessels which are still unshaped;
And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the Sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.
The next three mishnayoth contain halakhic traditions revolving around Rabban Gamaliel. Mishnah nine continues the pattern of the previous mishnah, of a dispute over which things are susceptible to impurity.
In mishnah eight we learned of three things that Rabbi Zadok declared susceptible to impurity and the Sages not susceptible. In mishnah nine we will learn of the same type of dispute, this time between Rabban Gamaliel and the Sages. Again, they seem to be disputing about how to define when something is a “vessel” such that it is susceptible to impurity. They dispute over four items:
1) The covering of a metal basket which belongs to a householder. In another tractate we learn that there is a difference between this type of covering if it is owned by a doctor. The doctors used these coverings for various uses, and therefore everyone agrees that they are susceptible to impurity. Rabban Gamaliel holds that a covering of this type of basket is used by non-professionals as well, and is therefore susceptible to impurity even if it belongs to a non-professional (a householder). The Sages disagree.
2) The hanger of a strigil. A strigil was a type of comb used during baths to scrape off dead skin. All agree that the strigil itself is susceptible to impurity. They disagree about the small chain attached to the strigil to hang it on a hook. According to Rabban Gamaliel it too is considered a vessel and therefore receives impurity. According to the Sages it does not.
3) Generally speaking, unformed vessels cannot receive impurity. However, when it comes to metal vessels that have not been fully finished, in other words they have not been polished, Rabban Gamaliel holds that they are susceptible to impurity, since they can be used. The Sages insist that as long as they are not fully finished they cannot receive impurity.
According to Rabban Gamaliel, a plate broken in two can still receive impurity. The Sages hold that broken vessels cannot generally speaking receive impurity. However, they agree with Rabban Gamaliel that if one of the pieces was large, that it still can receive impurity, since it is still useful. The small piece cannot receive impurity.

ותלוי המגרדות – nails that hangs on them the strigils in the bath houses and when everyone enters there, each person takes a strigil and combs/scrapes his feet and his body.

וגולמי כלי מתכות – that is needed to rub/polish, comb and knock together with a mallet or something lacking a rim or a handle, they do not become defiled according to the words of the Sages until their work has been completed.

טבלא שנחלקה לשנים – an earthenware plate that has vertical rims/edges and it is made as two equivalent pieces where one of them is not larger than its fellow, and in this Rabban Gamaliel and the Sages dispute. But the Halakha is according to the Sages.

אין טומנין את החמין מיום טובל לשבת – For the School of Shammai holds that we don’t bake other than if he created a symbolic continuity of action (i.e., Eruv) with the bread, and we don’t cook other than if he made the legal fiction with the cooked food (i.e. preparing a dish on Thursday and letting it lie over until the end of the Sabbath, by which fiction all the cooking for the Sabbath which he does on the Holy Day on Friday is merely a continuation of the preparation begun on Thursday), and we don’t keep dishes warm other than if they were kept warm from the eve of the Holy Day (Thursday). But the School of Hillel holds that we bake and cook and keep dishes warm with the legal fiction with cooked foods alone.

Introduction Mishnah ten contains three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled like Beth Shammai.

אין זוקפין – a candelabrum of pieces when its pieces can be taken apart, we don’t restore them, for that is like [the prohibition of] building, and there is building with utensils and the School of Hillel holds that there is no [prohibition of] building with utensils.

This mishnah lists three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled strictly, as had Beth Shammai. Although later Sages generally ruled like Beth Hillel, there were some exceptions, and some of those are listed in our mishnah.

גריצין – thick loaves.

In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.
One may not wrap up hot food on a festival for the Sabbath; The Torah allows one to cook on the festival but not on the Sabbath. This rule has a limitation: one may cook on the festival only to eat that day, and not to prepare food for later. It is even forbidden to prepare food on a festival for the Sabbath, since that would be considered an insult to the honor of the festival. However, since this was necessary in cases where the Sabbath fell after the festival, the Sages developed something which is known as “eruv tavshilin”. A person would symbolically begin to cook a meal for the Sabbath on the day before the festival. Since he had already begun to cook for the Sabbath, he was allowed to cook other things on the festival for the Sabbath. This is a type of legal fiction still practiced today by halakhic Jews. According to Beth Shammai, if a person must create a separate type of “eruv tavshilin” for each type of cooking he wishes to do: if he wants to bake he must begin baking before the festival; if he wants to boil he must begin boiling before the festival. Rabban Gamaliel rules that it is forbidden to wrap food to make it retain its heat, since that is not part of the “eruv tavshilin” that he had made before the holiday. Beth Hillel would have allowed such an action, since Beth Hillel holds that all one must begin to do is cook a little bit, and that is sufficient to continue to do any cooking activities on the festival.

אלא רקיקין – thin loaves, for the School of Shammai holds that one does not bake a large batch of bread on Holy Days because of the trouble. But the School of Hillel says that one bakes a large batch of bread on the Holy Day/Yom Tov, for at the time that there is a large batch of bread, it is baked well.

And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; If a lamp made of several parts breaks on the festival, Rabban Gamaliel forbids one to fix it, since this is a type of “building” which is forbidden on the Sabbath. Beth Hillel holds that there is no prohibition of “building” with regards to erecting vessels, and therefore this is permitted.

חרי – large dough that is baked on the coals. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Gamaliel in all matters where is he stringent like the words of the School of Shammai.

And one may not bake [on festivals] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.” Rabban Gamaliel holds that it is forbidden to bake large loaves on a festival, and that only thin loaves are permitted. This is meant to prevent one from making too much bread on the festival, lest he make some for after the festival. Beth Hillel holds that it is permitted to bake large loaves, since bread cooks better when the oven is full. The final section of the mishnah contains some interaction between Rabban Gamaliel and the other Sages, who hold like Beth Hillel. Rabban Gamaliel testifies that his father’s house indeed acted in this manner, and only baked wafer-cakes on the festival. The other Sages accept this testimony of Rabban Gamaliel as being an accurate description of what Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house used to do, but they understand its significance differently. The Sages say that Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house was strict upon themselves, but allowed the rest of Israel to cook large loaves, even charcoal roasted loaves which are very difficult to make. The strict actions of Rabban Gamaliel’s fathers house were only meant for themselves and were not meant to set precedent for everyone else.

מכבדין בין המטות – where they eat there and it is customary for them to recline on the couches and eat.

Introduction In mishnah ten we learned of three cases where Rabban Gamaliel was strict like Beth Shammai. In mishnah eleven we will learn three cases where he adopted a more lenient position than the other Sages.

מוגמר – frankincense on the coals in order to smell it, but to polish the utensils, everyone says that it is prohibited.

Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character:
One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches, In the time of the Mishnah, during formal meals people would recline on couches on the ground and eat off personal tables which were more like trays. According to Rabban Gamaliel one can sweep up between the couches after the meal on a festival. The Sages forbid this for fear that one might fill in a hole that is in the floor, which could be considered a form of building, which is forbidden on the Sabbath.

מקולס – its legs and its bowels hanging [at its side] outside it when they roast it, and they do it in memory of the Passover offering, as it is written concerning it (Exodus 12:9): “but roasted – head, legs, and entrails -over the fire.” The animal roasted in its entirety with the entrails and legs on the head like this hero with its armaments of war with it. It is an Aramaic translation of “and a copper helmet” is helmet of copper (see Tractate Pesahim 74a where Rabbi Tarfon called it a kid with its helmet on).

And put spices [on the coals] on a festival; Cooking food is allowed on a festival (but not on the Sabbath). Rabban Gamaliel allowed people to put spices on coals, which would make a pleasant scent. Even though this is not cooking food, it is permitted since it is still a bodily pleasure. The Sages forbid doing so since not all people are equally accustomed to put spices on coals after a meal.

וחכמים אוסרים – in all three [they forbid it]; serving food because of they will make holes/indentations, and the frankincense on the coals because it is not a need for every person but only for those who are most indulged or for the person who smells bad and the animal with its legs and bowels hanging [at its side] because it appears like eating Holy Things outside [the Temple] and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them. When there was a Temple in Jerusalem, people would roast kids (lambs, not the human kind) as Passover sacrifices on the day before Passover and eat them at night. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. sacrifices could no longer be offered. Nevertheless, Rabban Gamaliel permitted people to make roasted kids at their own seders. The other Sages forbid this, lest someone think that they were eating sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem.

פרתו יוצאת ברצועה בין קרניה – for beauty, and the Sages said that it is a burden and not an ornament for it. And it was not the cow of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, bur of his neighbor. And because he did not protest about it, it is called by his name.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allows three things and the Sages forbid them:
His cow used to go out with the strap which she had between her horns;
One may curry cattle on a festival;
And one may grind pepper in its own mill.
Rabbi Judah says: one may not curry cattle on a festival, because it may cause a wound, but one may comb them.
But the Sages say: one may not curry them, and one may not even comb them.
Mishnah twelve contains three cases where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was more lenient than the other Sages.
Section one: It is forbidden to carry things in the public domain on the Sabbath. This is true even for a person’s animal, since it is forbidden to make one’s animal perform work on the Sabbath. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allowed his cow to go out with a strap between its horns, since this strap was only an adornment and therefore he did not consider it “work”. In the same way a person can wear clothing in the public domain and that is not considered carrying. However, the Sages forbid cows from carrying anything, since most cows do not do so. Furthermore, if others were to see this they would think that it is permitted for an animal to work on the Sabbath.
Section two: Rabbi Eleazar permits a person to curry an animal on the festival, even though that might cause a wound. Currying is a type of combing done with a sharp metal comb. Rabbi Eleazar permits this activity since even if he causes a wound he did not intend to do so and unintentionally performed work is permitted on the Sabbath. In section four, Rabbi Judah states that currying is forbidden since it will cause a wound, but combing with a wooden comb is permitted since it will not cause a wound. In section five the Sages state that even combing is forbidden, lest by permitting combing one might assume that currying is also permitted.
Section three: Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah permits the grinding of peppercorns on the Sabbath, even in grinders made for grinding large quantities of peppercorns. Although this is a large amount of work, and it is clear that most of the pepper will not be used on that day, Rabbi Eleazar nevertheless permits. The Sages forbid this. According to them, one may grind peppercorns only in small quantities with a mortar and pestle, since grinding more than this would be allowing one to prepare food on the festival for a week day, which is forbidden.

ומקרדין בי"ט – it is a kind of small saw of iron whose teeth are thin. And they rub and saw with it the cattle and even though he makes a wound.

ברחים שלהן – with small [millstones] it is made for that.

מקרצפים – with a wooden saw whose teeth are thick and don’t make a wound.

אף לא מקרצפים – since we decree that currying with a strigil/scratching [for the sake of] currying/scraping (which wound the skin). And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. But, rub and saw the cattle only with a small saw of iron because through it we can fulfill the approach of Rabbi Shimon who stated that a thing without intention is permitted and we hold like him. But the Sages dispute him and hold like Rabbi Yehuda who stated that a thing where he doesn’t have an intention is prohibited, but the Halakha is not like this.