משנה: הַנּוֹטֵל צִפָּרְנָיו זוֹ בָזוֹ אוֹ בְשִׁינָּיו וְכֵן שְׂעָרוֹ וְכֵן שְׂפָמוֹ וְכֵן זְקָנוֹ וְכֵן הַגּוֹדֶלֶת וְכֵן הַכּוֹחֶלֶת וְכֵן הַפּוֹקֶסֶת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב חַטָּאת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת. הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵעָצִיץ נָקוּב חַייָב וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב פָּטוּר. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה: MISHNAH: He who takes off his fingernails one with the other or with his teeth, and similarly his hair, or his mustache, or his beard, and similarly the woman who braids, or who puts on kohl, or puts on make-up, Rebbi Eliezer declares liable for a purification sacrifice but the Sages say because of Sabbath rest16“Sabbath rest” always means “rabbinic prohibition”.
Rashi on the Mishnah quotes two interpretations of פוקסת: “putting on make-up” (Yerushalmi), “combing the hair” (Babli). The latter meaning may be connected to Arabic فقس “to draw somebody by the hair.”. One who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable17Because it is connected to the ground by the hole at the bottom, plucking from the flower pot is harvesting. If there is no hole at the bottom, plucking is harvesting only rabbinically, not creating liability., with no hole is not liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable in either case18If the root of the plant reaches the hole, even R. Simeon agrees that plucking from the flower pot is harvesting..
הלכה: ז׳. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁנְּטָלָן הוּא. אֲבָל אִם נְטָלָן אַחֵר מָאוּסִין הֵן. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי נָחוּם בְּשֵׁם רַב. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיִּטְלֶנּוּ בִקְרֶסְטֶל. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. הַגּוֹדֶלֶת חַייֶבֶת מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. וְאַתְיא כְּהַהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בְּנָייָה. בְּאַתְרִין צְווָחִין לַקַּלְעִיתָא בָּנִייָתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלָא מִשׁוּם אֲרִיג. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָא. דְּתַמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָקּוֹלֵעַ שָׁלֹשׁ נֵימִין בָּאָדָם חַייָב מִשׁוּם אֲרִיג. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. לֹא טְווִי וַאֲרִיג הוּא. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. כָּאן בִּמְרוּבָּה וְכָאן בִּמְמוּעַט. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בָּאָדָם. אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה טָהוֹר. כְּהְדְא דְתַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׂה פַסִיקִיָּא לִילָבֵב לִישַּׁפֵּר לְהַדֵּיק בָּהּ אֶת הַמַּרְצוּפִין לִתְלוֹתָהּ בְּצַוָּאר בְּהֵמָה. טָהוֹר. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אֲמַר. בִּפְשׁוּטִין. אֲבָל בִּמְקוּפָּלִין בֵּין בָּאָדָם בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טָמֵא. הַכּוֹחֶלֶת חַייֶבֶת מִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֶבֶת. הַפּוֹקֶסֶת חַייֶבֶת מִשּׁוּם צוֹבַעַת. HALAKHAH: 63Discussion of Mishnah 7. In A simply a note: (new) Mishnah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Where do they differ? If he himself took them but if another took them they are disgusting64Since it is unprofessional to trim somebody else’s fingernail with his fingers, even R. Eliezer must agree that there is no liability created. Shabbat.94b">Babli 94b.. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rav, he is never liable unless he take them with a grooming knife65Greek κνηστήρ, -ῆρος, ὁ. S. Liebermann, Tosefta kiFshutah Šabbat p. 137, Note 31, supported by the reading of A. In the Babli, the word appears as גנוסטר. In contrast to the Yerushalmi which requires a professional tool, the Babli declares liability for the use of any tool, 94b.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: The one who braids is liable because of building66Shabbat.94b-95a">Babli 94b/95a.. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Banaya: At our place they call builder one who is plaiting67Berakhot.61a">Berakhot61a, explaining Genesis.2.22">Gen. 2:22, not that God built up the rib, but that He braided the side (the female side of the human created as Siamese twin, Genesis.1.27">Gen. 1:27.). Rebbi Zeˋira said, would it not be reasonable that it should be because of weaving? The argument of Rebbi Zeˋira is inverted, for there said Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one who plaits three hairs of a human is liable because of weaving; Rebbi Zeˋira said, is it not spinning rather than weaving? And here he says so! There if they are few, here for many68Plaiting a few hairs is like spinning, braiding a full head of hair is like weaving.. That is what you say about a human, but for an animal it is pure, as it was stated: One who makes a belt69Latin fascia, -ae, f.. under the heart, to beautify, or to fasten the bags70Latin marsupium, -ii,n.., to hang it around an animal’s neck, is pure71This has nothing to do with the rules of the Sabbath. It is a side remark that only vessels and implements for human use are susceptible to impurity, not anything manufactured for exclusive use as decoration of animals. Cf. Tosephta Kelim Bava batra 4:14.. That is, for simple ones. But if the are folded, whether for human or for animal they are impure72The moment anything can be used as a container it is usable for a human and therefore subject to impurity even if used for animals.. The one who applies kohl is liable because of writing;73Since circling the eye with kohl amounts to writing the letter ס or the paleo-Hebrew ˋayin, o. the one who puts on make-up is liable because of dyeing66Shabbat.94b-95a">Babli 94b/95a..
יִצְחָק בַּר אוֹרִיוֹן אָמַר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁלֹּא תָלַשׁ כְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב. אֲבָל אִם תָּלַשׁ מִכְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב אַף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. הָיָה כוּלּוֹ בָאָרֶץ וְנֶקֶב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ. אַשְׁכְּחַת אֲמַר. מַה דִצְרִיכָא לְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה פְּשִׁיטָא לְיִצְחָק בֶּן אוֹרִיוֹן. אִילֵּין אִינִּין. וְהָא אִית לָךְ חוֹרָנִייָן. עָצִיץ נָקוּב מְקַדֵּשׁ בַּכֶּרֶם וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ בַּכֶּרֶם. עָצִיץ נָקוּב אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵעָצִיץ נָקוּב חַייָב וּמִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוּסֵה אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה מַטֵּי בָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבָת בְּטָהֳרַת זְרָעִים. מַה טַעַם. וְכִ֤י יִפֹּל֙ מִנִּבְלָתָ֔ם עַל־כָּל־זֶ֥רַע זֵר֖וּעַ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִזָּרֵ֑עַ וגו׳. Isaac bar Orion said, where do they disagree74The disagreement between the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon about harvesting from flower pots on the Sabbath; cf. Notes 17,18. The main part of the paragraph is from Kilayim 7:6:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.7.6.2">Kilaim 7:6, Notes 80–83.? If he did not pluck it off over the hole. But if he plucked it off over the hole also Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If everything was in the Land but the hole outside the Land75This has nothing to do with the rules of the Sabbath but with agricultural laws, such as heave, tithes, and the Sabbatical year, which are intrinsically restricted to growth of the Holy Land. If the rabbis consider a flower pot agricultural land, what is the status of such a pot standing in the Land but drawing its moisture from outside the Land? For Isaac bar Orion obviously the pot belongs to the outside.? It turns out that you may say what was questionable for Rebbi Jeremiah was obvious for Isaac bar Orion. These are it76This is a shortened reference to the text in Kilaim which has become unintelligible. The text referred to reads in full: It was stated: “the only difference between a flower pot without a hole and one with a hole regards preparation for impurity.” That is for Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis there are others. (Shabbat.95">Babli 95a/b,). But there are others! “A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, one without a hole does not sanctify77A part of Kilayim 7:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.7.6.1">Mishnah Kilaim 7:8 in the independent Mishnah mss., not in the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi. Growth of produce other than vines in a vineyard makes everything forbidden for usufruct; Deuteronomy.22.9">Deut. 22:9..” “A flower pot with a hole cannot prepare plants, one without a hole prepares.78Mishnah Uqeṣin 2:10. Food can become impure only after the harvest and only after having been wetted, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141. A plant in a pot with hole is a plant in the earth and nothing can make it prepared for impurity at this stage. A plant in a pot without hole is already harvested since it can be plucked on the Sabbath without fear of prosecution; if it is watered, it becomes subject to possible impurity.” “He who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable, from one without a hole he is not liable.17Because it is connected to the ground by the hole at the bottom, plucking from the flower pot is harvesting. If there is no hole at the bottom, plucking is harvesting only rabbinically, not creating liability.” Rebbi Yose referred to it as anonymous statement, Rebbi Ḥanania quoted it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac79In another quote of this sentence, in Maˋserot 5:2 (Note 46): Rebbi La.: The Torah extended the purity of growing plants80Leviticus.11.37">Lev. 11:37. This explains why R. Simeon agrees with the rabbis that a flower pot with hole is immune from impurity and is not comparable to a pot with hole: The verse insists that anything sown in any way acceptable in agriculture is pure. The main point of the argument is lost in the quote here (which again shows that its origin is in Kilaim). The “etc.” hides the final statement of the verse: it is pure. The quote of the verse also is truncated in the Shabbat.95b">Babli, 95b.: If any of their cadavers falls on any sown seed apt to be sown, etc.