משנה: הַמּוֹצִיא כִכָּר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חַייָב. הוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם פְּטוּרִין. לֹא יָכוֹל אֶחָד לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּ הוּ שְׁנַיִם חַייָבִין. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. הַמּוֹצִיא אוֹכְלִין פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁיעוּר בַּכֶּלִי פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַכְּלִי שֶׁהַכְּלִי טְפֵילָה לוֹ. אֶת הַחַי בַּמִּיטָּה פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַמִּיטָּה שֶׁהַמִּיטָּה טְפֵילָה לוֹ. אֶת הַמֵּת בַּמִּיטָּה חַייָב וְכֵן כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת וְכַזַּיִת מִן הַנְּבֵילָה וְכָעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ חַייָבִין. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר: MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs less than a measure in a vessel is not liable even for the vessel since the vessel is an accessory to it, for a living person on a bier he is not liable12A living being, not only a human, “carries himself”; carrying a live person always is an act performed by two persons, the carrier and the carried and, therefore, creates no liability. even for the bier since the vessel is an accessory to him. For a dead person on a bier he is liable, and so for the volume of an olive from a dead person, or the volume of an olive from a carcass, or of a lentil from a crawling animal13I. e., the minimum volume which creates impurity. one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable14As work not needed for its own purpose..
He who takes out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two together took it out they are not liable15Cf. Shabbat 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.1.1.1">Chapter 1, Note 1. R. Simeon holds that even in the latter case there can be no liability attached to work done by several people in common by biblical decree; see in the Halakhah on Mishnah 5.. If one alone is unable to take it out and two took it out they are liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares them not liable.
הלכה: ה׳. בַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ. הַיָּחִיד שֶׁעָשָׂה חַייָב. שְׁנַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁעָשׂוּ פְטוּרִין. רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ דְּרוֹמַיָּא אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. קְנֵי גִירְדִּי. רִבִּי פוֹטֵר. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַייֵב. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי. כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵאָבִיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ. שִׁימַּשְׁתִּי אֶת אַבָּא עוֹמַדּוֹת מַה שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימַּשְׁתּוֹ יְשִׁיבוֹת. וְרִבִּי תַלְמִידֵיהּ דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹחַי דַּהֲוֵי. לֹא תַלְמִידֵיהּ דְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר קוֹדְשַׁי הֲוָה. אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַר לֵיהּ. שִׁמַּשְׁתִּי אֶת אַבָּא עוֹמְדוּת מַה שֶׁלֹּא שִׁמַּשְׁתָּ אֶת רַבָּךְ יְשִׁיבוּת. כְּשֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִכְנַס לְבֵית הַווַעַד הָיוּ פָנָיו שֶׁלְרִבִּי מַקְדִּירוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אָבוֹי. וְיֵאוּת. זֶה אֲרִי בֶן אֲרִי. אֲבָל אַתָּה אֲרִי בֶן שׁוּעַל. מִן דְּמָךְ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁלַח רִבִּי תְבַע בְּאִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָֽמְרָה לֵיהּ. כְּלִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ קוֹדֶשׁ יִשְׁתַּמֶּשׁ בּוֹ חוֹל. HALAKHAH: When she was doing it49Leviticus.4.27">Lev. 4:27, establishing the qualifications for a purification offering. The feminine refers to נֶפֶשׁ “a person”. The singular both of verb and suffix shows that the verse refers to a single person and a single action. Shabbat.93a">Babli 93a; cf. Horayot 1:1:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.1.10">Horaiot 1:1 Note 8, Leviticus.1.1-5.26">Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parashah 7(4,Leviticus.1.9">9).
The paragraph refers to Mishnah 6 which frees from liability two or more people engaged in transporting on the Sabbath.. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner said before Rebbi (Yasa) [Yose]50Since R. Joshua the Southerner was a contemporary of R. Yose, two generations after R. Yasa, the reading of A in [brackets] has to be accepted. in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A weaver’s beam, Rebbi declares not liable, but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, he is liable51Cf. Shabbat.93b">Babli 93b, where this tradition is rejected at the end. The weaver’s beam usually is operated by a single person; what is the situation if it was carried into the public domain by two people? It can be carried by one person; by the criterion of Mishnah 5 there should be no liability. But since the beam is large, it is inconvenient to be carried by one person; there is an argument to be made that there is liability.
The spelling of A is correct in normative grammar.. Rebbi said to him, so I heard from your father. He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served him sitting. But was Rebbi the student of Rebbi Simeon (bar) [ben] Yoḥai52In the Leiden ms., this sentence is a corrector’s addition. The spelling “bar Yoḥai” is a clear Babylonism; the reading of A in [brackets] is preferable.? Was he not the student of Rebbi Jacob bar (Qodshai) [Qorshai]53Probably the reading of the ms. in (parentheses) is preferable. In Pesaḥim 10:1 (37b line l. 62) the scribe first wrote קורשיי but then corrected it to קודשיי. In the Horayot.13b">Babli, Horaiot 13b, the early prints and the Munich ms. read קדשי (cf. Diqduqe Soferim,Abodah sarah etc. Horaiot p. כג, Note ח֜.)
R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon indicates that from the incidental remarks of his father he learned more than Rebbi did in his formal studies.? But so he must have said to him, He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served your teacher sitting. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon came to the house of assembly, Rebbi’s face darkened54Because R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon always tried to prove him wrong.. His father told him, it is correct so, for he is a lion son of a lion, but you are a lion son of a jackal55Babli Bava meṣi aˋ 84b.. When (Rebbi Eleazar) [he]56The reading of A in [brackets] is preferable. died, Rebbi sent to ask his wife in marriage. She said to him, a vessel which was used in holiness should be used in a profane way?
ו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בִּצְרִיכִין לְכֶילְייָן. כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין תּוּתַּייְָא. אֲבָל אִם אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְכֶילְייָן חַייָב אַף עַל הַכְּלִי. 6. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, what you are saying is about when the vessel is needed, as for mulberries. But if they do not need their vessel he is liable also for the vessel57This refers to Mishnah 5, showing that the Halakhah reads Mishnah 6 before Mishnah 5, as in the Babli. The vessel is secondary to the food only if it is necessary. If the fruits are so large that the vessel is not needed, the vessel no longer is an accessory. The Shabbat.93b">Babli (93b bottom) has a different take on the problem. The word which illustrates the second alternative in A is unexplained; the editor of A reports that the reading is uncertain..
אֶת הַחַי בַּמִּיטָָּה פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַמִּיטָָּה. דְּחַייָא טָעִין גַּרְמֵיהּ. אֶת הַמֵּת בַּמִּיטָּה חַייָב. דִּבְרֵי הְכֹּל. לֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי. אַף רֵיחַ רַע כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. אַף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה בָהּ. וּמוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָייָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר בְּמֵת גּוֹי וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רֵיחַ רַע וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לְכַלְבּוֹ. תַּנֵּי. חֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַמֵּת וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַנְּבֵילָה וּפַחוּת מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶׁרֶץ חַייָב. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. מַה טַעַמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. כְּבָר נִתְמָעֲטָה הָטּוּמְאָה. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. בָּהַהִיא דְרִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר בְּמֵת גּוֹי וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רֵיחַ רַע וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לְכַלְבּוֹ. “A living person on a bier is not liable12A living being, not only a human, “carries himself”; carrying a live person always is an act performed by two persons, the carrier and the carried and, therefore, creates no liability. even for the bier,” for the living carries himself58Shabbat.94a">Babli 94a, Shabbat.141b">141b; Eruvin.103a">Eruvin 103a; Yoma.66b">Yoma 66b.. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody59The questioner refers the remark at the end of Mishnah 5, “R. Simeon declares not liable” to the entire statement.? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct60Shabbat 9:6:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.9.6.2">Chapter 9, Note 136. How can R. Simeon require the volume of an olive of a corpse since it smells badly and is forbidden for usufruct?. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog61Gentile corpses are not forbidden for usufruct. Therefore neither of R. Simeon’s exceptions applies.. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated62Therefore he does not agree that the volumes may be combined since the minimum amount for a corpse is the volume of an olive but for carcass meat or crawling animal it is a dog’s mouthful.
The reading of A, “the volume of a lentil”, seems to be a scribal error. Cf. Shabbat.94b">Babli 94b.. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog61Gentile corpses are not forbidden for usufruct. Therefore neither of R. Simeon’s exceptions applies..