GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people and say to them:
These are My fixed times, the fixed times of GOD, that you shall proclaim as sacred occasions. On six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there shall be a sabbath of complete rest, a sacred occasion. You shall do no work; it shall be a sabbath of GOD throughout your settlements. These are the set times of GOD, the sacred occasions, which you shall celebrate each at its appointed time: In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, there shall be a passover offering to GOD, and on the fifteenth day of that month GOD’s Feast of Unleavened Bread. You shall eat unleavened bread for seven days. On the first day you shall celebrate a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations. Seven days you shall make offerings by fire to GOD. The seventh day shall be a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations. GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people and say to them:
When you enter the land that I am giving to you and you reap its harvest, you shall bring the first sheaf of your harvest to the priest. He shall elevate the sheaf before GOD for acceptance in your behalf; the priest shall elevate it on the day after the sabbath. On the day that you elevate the sheaf, you shall offer as a burnt offering to GOD a lamb of the first year without blemish. The grain offering with it shall be two-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to GOD; and the libation with it shall be of wine, a quarter of a hin. Until that very day, until you have brought the offering of your God, you shall eat no bread or parched grain or fresh ears;^abread or parched grain or fresh ears Of the new crop. it is a law for all time throughout the ages in all your settlements. And from the day on which you bring the sheaf of elevation offering—the day after the sabbath—you shall count off seven weeks. They must be complete: you must count until the day after the seventh week—fifty days; then you shall bring an offering of new grain to GOD. You shall bring from your settlements two loaves of bread as an elevation offering; each shall be made of two-tenths of a measure of choice flour, baked after leavening, as first fruits to GOD. With the bread you shall present, as burnt offerings to GOD, seven yearling lambs without blemish, one bull of the herd, and two rams, with their grain offerings and libations, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to GOD. You shall also offer one he-goat as a purgation offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being. The priest shall elevate these—the two lambs^b—the two lambs— Force of Heb. construction uncertain.—together with the bread of first fruits as an elevation offering before GOD; they shall be holy to GOD, for the priest. On that same day you shall hold a celebration; it shall be a sacred occasion for you; you shall not work at your occupations. This is a law for all time in all your settlements, throughout the ages. And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I the ETERNAL am your God. GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people thus: In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts. You shall not work at your occupations; and you shall bring an offering by fire to GOD. GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Mark, the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion for you: you shall practice self-denial, and you shall bring an offering by fire to GOD; you shall do no work throughout that day. For it is a Day of Atonement, on which expiation is made on your behalf before the ETERNAL your God. Indeed, any person who does not practice self-denial throughout that day shall be cut off from kin; and whoever does any work throughout that day, I will cause that person to perish from among the people. Do no work whatever; it is a law for all time, throughout the ages in all your settlements. It shall be a sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall practice self-denial; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall observe this your sabbath. GOD spoke to Moses, saying: Say to the Israelite people:
On the fifteenth day of this seventh month there shall be the Feast of Booths^cBooths In contrast to others “Tabernacles.” to GOD, [to last] seven days. The first day shall be a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations; seven days you shall bring offerings by fire to GOD. On the eighth day you shall observe a sacred occasion and bring an offering by fire to GOD; it is a solemn gathering:^dsolemn gathering Precise meaning of Heb. ʻaṣereth uncertain. Cf. Num. 29.35; Deut. 16.8. you shall not work at your occupations. Those are the set times of GOD that you shall celebrate as sacred occasions, bringing offerings by fire to GOD—burnt offerings, grain offerings, sacrifices, and libations, on each day what is proper to it— apart from the sabbaths of GOD, and apart from your gifts and from all your votive offerings and from all your freewill offerings that you give to GOD. Mark, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the yield of your land, you shall observe the festival of GOD [to last] seven days: a complete rest on the first day, and a complete rest on the eighth day. On the first day you shall take the product of hadar^ehadar Exact meaning of Heb. hadar uncertain. Traditionally the product is understood as “citron.” trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy^fleafy Meaning of Heb. ʻaboth uncertain. trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the ETERNAL your God seven days. You shall observe it as a festival of GOD for seven days in the year; you shall observe it in the seventh month as a law for all time, throughout the ages. You shall live in booths seven days; all citizens in Israel shall live in booths, in order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt—I the ETERNAL your God. So Moses declared to the Israelites the set times of GOD.

Observe the month^amonth Cf. Exod. 13.4; 23.15; 34.18. of Abib and offer a passover sacrifice to the ETERNAL your God, for it was in the month^bmonth See previous note. of Abib, at night, that the ETERNAL your God freed you from Egypt. You shall slaughter the passover sacrifice for the ETERNAL your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where GOD will choose to establish the divine name. You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days thereafter^cthereafter Lit. “upon it.” you shall eat unleavened bread, bread of distress—for you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly—so that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt as long as you live. For seven days no leaven shall be found with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh of what you slaughter on the evening of the first day shall be left until morning. You are not permitted to slaughter the passover sacrifice in any of the settlements that the ETERNAL your God is giving you; but at the place where the ETERNAL your God will choose to establish the divine name, there alone shall you slaughter the passover sacrifice, in the evening, at sundown, the time of day when you departed from Egypt. You shall cook and eat it at the place that the ETERNAL your God will choose; and in the morning you may start back on your journey home. After eating unleavened bread six days, you shall hold a solemn gathering^dsolemn gathering Precise meaning of Heb. ʻaṣereth uncertain. Cf. Lev. 23.36; Num. 29.35. for the ETERNAL your God on the seventh day: you shall do no work. You shall count off seven weeks; start to count the seven weeks when the sickle is first put to the standing grain. Then you shall observe the Feast of Weeks for the ETERNAL your God, offering your freewill contribution according as the ETERNAL your God has blessed you. You^eYou See note at 12.5. shall rejoice before the ETERNAL your God with your son and daughter, your male and female slave, the Levite^fthe Levite See the second note at 12.12. in your communities, and the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow in your midst, at the place where the ETERNAL your God will choose to establish the divine name. Bear in mind that you were slaves in Egypt, and take care to obey these laws. After the ingathering from your threshing floor and your vat, you shall hold the Feast of Booths for seven days. You^gYou See note at 12.5. shall rejoice in your festival, with your son and daughter, your male and female slave, the Levite,^hthe Levite See the second note at 12.12. the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow in your communities. You shall hold a festival for the ETERNAL your God seven days, in the place that GOD will choose; for the ETERNAL your God will bless allⁱall Lit. “you in all.” your crops and all your undertakings, and you shall have nothing but joy. Three times a year—on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Booths—all your males shall appear before the ETERNAL your God in the place that [God] will choose. They shall not appear before GOD empty-handed, but each with his own gift, according to the blessing that the ETERNAL your God has bestowed upon you.

We learned in the mishna that when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat, burning the fats of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Gemara notes that it was taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. For burning the fats and limbs and inner fats is valid all night and it would have been possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nonetheless we do not wait with them until nightfall; rather, we burn them immediately, even on Shabbat. The mishna also taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. The Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna in tractate Eiruvin, which teaches: One may cut off a wart by hand on Shabbat in the Temple but not in the rest of the country outside the Temple. And if the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. From here we see that in the Temple cutting off a wart, at least by hand, is permitted. Two amora’im, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, disagreed about how to resolve this contradiction. One of them said: Both this mishna in Pesaḥim and that mishna in Eiruvin speak of cutting off the wart by hand. This mishna that forbids cutting it off refers to a moist wart, which is considered like the flesh of the animal. It is therefore prohibited by rabbinic decree to cut off the wart; and since it could have been removed before Shabbat, the decree applies even in the Temple, where rabbinic decrees are generally not applicable. That mishna that permits cutting it off refers to a dry wart, which breaks apart by itself, and so there is no prohibition even by rabbinic decree to cut it off. And the other one said: Both this mishna and that mishna speak of cutting off a moist wart, and it is not difficult. This mishna that says it is permitted talks about removing the wart by hand, which is prohibited only by a rabbinic decree that was not applied to the Temple; whereas that mishna that says it is prohibited talks about removing the wart with an instrument, which is prohibited by Torah law and forbidden everywhere. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that this mishna speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna speaks about cutting it off with an instrument, what is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that talk about cutting off the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this mishna speaks of a moist wart, while that mishna speaks of a dry wart? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: A dry wart breaks apart by itself, and so there would be no need to teach us that it may be removed. Both mishnayot must therefore refer to a moist wart, and the difference between them is whether the wart is being removed by hand or with an instrument. The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the one who says that both this mishna and that mishna talk about removing the wart by hand, and it is not difficult; this speaks of a moist wart while that speaks of a dry wart. What is the reason that he did not state like the other amora that this and that are discussing a moist wart and it is not difficult; this mishna in Eiruvin speaks about cutting off the wart by hand and that mishna in Pesaḥim speaks about cutting it off with an instrument? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: The case of cutting off the wart with an instrument is taught there in Eiruvin in that very same mishna: If the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. Therefore, there would be no reason to repeat the same halakha here in this mishna, as it is stated explicitly in the other mishna. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, how does he account for the repetition according to his explanation? The mishna here teaches the law with regard to an instrument because it comes to teach us the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua; for according to our mishna, Rabbi Eliezer permits cutting off a moist wart even with an instrument in order to render the animal fit to be brought as a Paschal offering. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer said that if slaughter, which is ordinarily forbidden on Shabbat as a biblically prohibited labor, nevertheless overrides Shabbat when performed for the sake of the Paschal lamb, then activities that are prohibited by rabbinic decree should certainly override Shabbat when performed for that purpose. Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed, arguing that the law governing a Festival proves otherwise. Rabbi Eliezer countered that the law governing an optional activity, such as preparing food on a Festival, cannot be brought as proof with regard to the mitzva of offering the Paschal lamb. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua follows his regular line of reasoning, for he said that rejoicing on a Festival is also a mitzva, and therefore whatever one does in order to enhance one’s enjoyment of the Festival is considered an act performed for the sake of a mitzva, just like the offering of a sacrifice. For it was taught in a baraita that these two tanna’im disagreed about this matter: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has nothing but to choose on a Festival; he either eats and drinks or sits and learns the entire day, but there is no specific mitzva to eat on the Festival. Rabbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, says: Divide the day, half of it for eating and drinking and half of it for the study hall, for he holds that eating and drinking are obligatory on the Festival. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse, i.e., the two of them addressed the same textual difficulty, resolving it in different ways. For one verse says: “It shall be an assembly for the Lord your God; you shall do no labor” (Deuteronomy 16:8), which indicates that the day is set aside for Divine service, and another verse says: “It shall be an assembly for you; you shall do no servile labor” (Numbers 29:35), which indicates a celebratory assembly for the Jewish people. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the two verses should be understood as offering a choice: The day is to be either entirely for God or entirely for you. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is possible to fulfill both verses: Split the day into two, half of it for God and half of it for you. Ayin, beit, mem is a mnemonic consisting of the first letter of Atzeret, the middle letter of Shabbat and the final letter of Purim. Rabbi Elazar said: All agree with regard to Atzeret, the holiday of Shavuot, that we require that it be also “for you,” meaning that it is a mitzva to eat, drink, and rejoice on that day. What is the reason? It is the day on which the Torah was given, and one must celebrate the fact that the Torah was given to the Jewish people. Rabba said: All agree with regard to Shabbat that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because the verse states: “If you proclaim Shabbat a delight, the sacred day of God honored” (Isaiah 58:13). Rav Yosef said: All agree with regard to Purim that we require that it be also “for you.” What is the reason? Because it is written: “To observe them as days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22). The Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, would spend the entire year fasting during the day and eating only sparsely at night, except for Shavuot, Purim, and the eve of Yom Kippur. He made these exceptions for the following reasons: Shavuot because it is the day on which the Torah was given and there is a mitzva to demonstrate one’s joy on that day; Purim because “days of feasting and gladness” is written about it; the eve of Yom Kippur, as Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32). But does one fast on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, this comes to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth, the verse ascribes him credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth of Tishrei. The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef, on the day of Shavuot, would say: Prepare me a choice third-born calf. He said: If not for this day on which the Torah was given that caused the Jewish people to have the Torah, how many Yosefs would there be in the market? It is only due to the importance of Torah study that I have become a leader of the Jewish people, and I therefore have a special obligation to rejoice on this day. A somewhat similar story is told about Rav Sheshet, that every thirty days he would review his studies that he had learned over the previous month, and he would stand and lean against the bolt of the door and say: Rejoice my soul, rejoice my soul, for you I have read Scripture, for you I have studied Mishna. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Torah study is beneficial only for the soul of the person who has studied? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: If not for the Torah and its study, heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If not for My covenant by day and by night, I would not have set up the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). It is the Torah, the eternal covenant that is studied day and night, that justifies the continued existence of the world. The Gemara answers: This is indeed correct, but at the outset when a person does this mitzva, he does it for himself, and only afterward does he have in mind the benefit that will be brought to the entire world. Rav Ashi said: And even according to what Rabbi Eliezer said, that rejoicing on a Festival is optional, there is a refutation: If on a Festival, when a biblically prohibited labor, such as slaughtering, baking, or cooking, is permitted even when it is performed for an optional activity, nonetheless a rabbinic decree that is with it is not permitted, and we do not say that since they permitted an optional activity they permitted everything associated with it; how much more so on Shabbat, when a biblically prohibited labor is only permitted when it is performed for a mitzva, isn’t it right not to permit a rabbinic decree that is with it? Activities that are forbidden due to a rabbinic decree should thus be prohibited on Shabbat even for the purpose of a mitzva, against the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

MISHNAH: One may fold garments even four or five times⁹If he is not satisfied by the way his garments were folded, he may repeat the operation as many times as necessary. and make the beds from Friday Night to the Sabbath Day, but not from Sabbath for after the Sabbath. Rebbi Ismael says, one folds garments and makes beds from the day of Atonement to the Sabbath¹⁰Since the holiness of the Day of Atonement is less than that of the Sabbath. The statements presuppose that the Day of Atonement may fall on a Friday or a Sunday, which is avoided in today’s computed calendar.. The fats of the Sabbath¹¹This refers to the Temple service. The left-over pieces of the sacrifices of one day have to be burned on the altar during the following night (Lev. 6:2,5). On the Sabbath, where burning is forbidden in general, only the sacrifice of the Sabbath (Num. 28:9–10) is permitted. Therefore it is clear that remainders from a Friday service of any kind cannot be burned in the following night. The question is about the service in the night from the Sabbath to Sunday, in case burning also is forbidden on Sunday. R. Aqiba follows his Mishnah (Megillah 1:5) that the only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that violations of the Sabbath are criminal offenses while violations of the Day of Atonement are sins. are brought on the Day of Atonement but those of the Day of Atonement are not brought on the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba says, neither are those of the Sabbath brought on the Day of Atonement nor those of the Day of Atonement on the Sabbath. HALAKHAH: 3. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, folding by two persons is forbidden²⁷Folding garments or bedsheets, as mentioned in Mishnah 3. Two people folding a sheet is professional work. Babli 113a (which has a list of further restrictons unknown to the Yerushalmi.). Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On the Sabbath, two together may not fold. If one folds on a footstool²⁸Latin subsellium, -ii, n. it is as if two persons were folding²⁹Since folding garments on a low bench is easier than folding when holding them in the air, the low bench has the status of a work tool which rabbinically cannot be used.. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for eating and drinking. Since this mouth [is bothersome]³⁰As E proves, this word, which was written by the Leiden scribe, is the correct expression. It was changed by the corrector into a word, reproduced in the Venice edition, which makes no sense in this context. (is smelling), they permitted him to be occupied with words of the Torah. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for being occupied with words of the Torah³¹Here E has an explanatory addition which is attested to in some Medieval sources [Sefer Haˋittim §198 p. 290; some mss. of Meїri ad 118b, ed. I. S. Lange p. 459, Or zarua Šabbat §89; it is missing in the quotes of the paragraph in Šibbole Halleqet (ed. S. Buber fol. 34a) and Sefer Hamanhig (ed I. Raphael p. 181)]: “on weekdays since he is occupied he has no free time to occupy himself with words of Torah; holidays and Sabbaths were given to him to occupy himself with words of Torah.”. A baraita supports either one of them: What does one do? Either he sits down and eats or he sits and studies words of the Torah. One verse says, it is a Sabbath for the Eternal³²Lev. 23:3. This means totally to the Eternal., and another verse says, an assembly for the Eternal³³Deut. 16:8. This means partially to the Eternal., your God. How is that? Give part of it to the study of Torah and part to eat and to drink. Rebbi Abbahu said, a Sabbath for the Eternal³⁴Ex. 20:10. E shows that probably the quote Lev. 23:3 is intended., rest like the Eternal. Since the Eternal rested from saying, you also should rest from saying³⁴Ex. 20:10. E shows that probably the quote Lev. 23:3 is intended.. ³⁶This paragraph is not in the original text of the Yerushalmi; it was added by the corrector and is not in E. A Yerushalmi source of the story is Lev. rabba 34(15) at the end. A slightly different version is in the Babli 150b. It is clear that the mention of a “tent” in this connection is a scribal error; maybe it should be שִׂיחַ “bush”. It happened that a pious person went to promenade in his vineyard on the Sabbath when he saw there a breach which he decided to repair after the Sabbath. He said, because I wanted to repair I shall never repair it. What did the Holy One, praise to Him, do for him? He prepared for him a tent of caper bush which grew there and mended it. From it he was fed and from there was his sustenance all his days. Rebbi Ḥanina said, with difficulty they permitted greeting on the Sabbath³⁷This is continuation of the statement that talking on the Sabbath is frowned upon. In the Babli, 12b, this is applied only to visits to the sick and mourners.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, when Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai saw that his mother enjoyed talking much, he said to her, mama, today is Sabbath. It was stated: It is forbidden to pray for his needs on the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, may one say, “shepherd us, provide for us”³⁸Expressions in the third benediction of Grace. (Cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, p. 353.) The passage also is quoted in Lev. rabba 34 (Note 36).? He answered him, these are formulas of benediction. It was stated: One rinses cups, pots, and plates from Friday Night to the morning, from morning to noon, from noon to afternoon³⁹One may cleanse dishes from one meal for the next; one is not required to have new dishes for every repast. Babli 118a.. After afternoon it is forbidden, only for cups it is permitted since drinking has no fixed times. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: An intelligent woman rinses a cup here, a pot there, a plate there; the result is that she waters down her house on the Sabbath⁴⁰If she has a one story house with a dirt floor, she washes different pieces at different places and so sprinkles all places.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, if the Day of Atonement falls to be on the Sabbath⁴¹It seems that this means that the Day of Atonement falls on Friday, as in the parallel in the Babli 114b. one does not blow⁴²A public blowing of a ram’s horn on Friday afternoon towards evening at a fixed time before sundown to alert everybody to the coming of the Sabbath. The details of this Galilean procedure are found only in the Babli, 35b. If Friday is the Day of Atonement, nobody is working and the sounding of the horn is unnecessary and therefore rabbinically forbidden., if after the Sabbath one does not make havdalah⁴³The required declaration of a “difference between Sabbath (or holiday) and weekday” after the end of the Sabbath or the holiday. Rabbinically, no work may be performed before some form of havdalah. But since everything forbidden on the Sabbath also is forbidden on the Day of Atonement (Mishnah Megillah 1:5), havdalah in this situation would make no sense. A special form of havdalah is required if Sunday is any other holiday since many things forbidden on the Sabbath are permitted on a holiday.. Why? Following Rebbi Aqiba. But following Rebbi Ismael he makes havdalah since the fats of the Sabbath¹¹This refers to the Temple service. The left-over pieces of the sacrifices of one day have to be burned on the altar during the following night (Lev. 6:2,5). On the Sabbath, where burning is forbidden in general, only the sacrifice of the Sabbath (Num. 28:9–10) is permitted. Therefore it is clear that remainders from a Friday service of any kind cannot be burned in the following night. The question is about the service in the night from the Sabbath to Sunday, in case burning also is forbidden on Sunday. R. Aqiba follows his Mishnah (Megillah 1:5) that the only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that violations of the Sabbath are criminal offenses while violations of the Day of Atonement are sins. are brought on the Day of Atonement⁴⁴It is implicit in his position as reported in Mishnah 3 that he considers the holiness of the Day of Atonement to be inferior to that of the Sabbath.. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, even according to Rebbi Ismael he should not make havdalah, since one only makes havdalah to permit things which were forbidden to him. If he would burn the fats of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, would that not be permitted? Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah said, he should make havdalah since by it he permits to rinse pickled and parboiled [food]⁴⁵One is permitted to start preparing food for breaking the fast some time before the end of the day of Atonement even though in general one is prohibited to do anything on a Sabbath or holiday to prepare for the following weekday. (This exception holds true even if the day of Atonement is a Sabbath proper.). Rebbi Yose said, he only is permitted to rinse pickled and parboiled [food] from the time of afternoon prayers or later. Could he make havdalah from the time of afternoon prayers or later? As you take it, there is no cup, there is no light⁴⁶The standard havdalah uses a cup of wine, a torch, and spices (the latter is not needed for holidays and the day of Atonement). Berakhot 5:2. On the Day of Atonement proper, neither a cup of wine nor fire is available., how can he make havdalah? Rebbi Abun said, in prayer⁴⁷The original form of havdalah, cf. Berakhot 5:2 Note 88..

IN accordance with this intention I find it convenient to divide all precepts into fourteen classes. The first class comprises those precepts which form fundamental principles, such as we have enumerated in Hilkot yesode ha-torah. Repentance and fasts belong also to this class, as will be shown. The second class comprises the precepts which are connected with the prohibition of idolatry, and which have been described by us in Hilkot a‘bodah-zarah. The laws concerning garments of linen and wool, concerning the fruit of trees in the first three years after they have been planted, and concerning divers seeds in a vineyard, are likewise contained in this class. The object of these precepts is to establish certain true principles and to perpetuate them among the people. The third class is formed by commandments which are connected with the improvement of the moral condition [of mankind]; these are mentioned in Hilkot de‘ot. It is known that by a good moral state those social relations, which are indispensable for the well-being of mankind, are brought to perfection. The fourth class includes precepts relating to charity, loans, gifts, and the like, e.g., the rules respecting “valuations,” (scil., of things devoted to sacred purposes, Lev. 27:1-27); “things devoted” (ibid. ver. 28); laws concerning loans and servants, and all the laws enumerated in the section Zera‘im, except the rules of “mixtures” and “the fruit of trees in the first three years.” The object of these precepts is clear; their benefit concerns an people by turns; for he who is rich to-day may one day be poor—either he himself or his descendants; and he who is now poor, he himself or his son may be rich to-morrow. The fifth class contains those precepts which relate to the prevention of wrong and violence; they are included in our book in the section Neziḳin. Their beneficial character is evident. The sixth class is formed of precepts respecting fines, e.g., the laws on theft and robbery, on false witnesses, and most of the laws contained in the section Shofetim belong to this class. Their benefit is apparent; for if sinners and robbers were not punished, injury would not be prevented at all: and persons scheming evil would not become rarer. They are wrong who suppose that it would be an act of mercy to abandon the laws of compensation for injuries; on the contrary, it would be perfect cruelty and injury to the social state of the country. It is an act of mercy that God commanded “judges and officers thou shalt appoint to thee in all thy gates” (Deut. 16:118). The seventh class comprises those laws which regulate the business transactions of men with each other; e.g., laws about loans, hire, trust, buying, selling, and the like; the rules about inheritance belong to this class. We have described these precepts in the sections Kinyan and Mishpatim. The object of these precepts is evident, for monetary transactions are necessary for the peoples of all countries, and it is impossible to have these transactions without a proper standard of equity and without useful regulations. The eighth class includes those precepts which relate to certain days, as Sabbaths and holydays: they are enumerated in the section Zemannim. The Law states clearly the reason and object of each of these precepts; they are to serve as a means for establishing a certain principle among us, or securing bodily recreation, or effecting both things at the same time, as will be shown by me. The ninth class comprises the general laws concerning religious rites and ceremonies, e.g., laws concerning prayers, the reading of Shema’, and the other rules given in the section Ahabah, with the exception of the law concerning circumcision. The object of these laws is apparent; they all prescribe actions which firmly establish the love of God in our minds, as also the right belief concerning Him and His attributes. The tenth class is formed of precepts which relate to the Sanctuary, its vessels, and its ministers; they are contained in the section ‘Abodah. The object of these precepts has already been mentioned by us (supra, chap. xxxii.). The eleventh class includes those precepts which relate to Sacrifices. Most of these laws we have mentioned in the sections ‘Abodah and Ḳorbanot. We have already shown the general use of the sacrificial laws, and their necessity in ancient time. The twelfth class comprises the laws concerning things unclean and clean. The general object of these laws is, as will be explained by me, to discourage people from [frequently] entering the Sanctuary; in order that their minds be impressed with the greatness of the Sanctuary, and approach it with respect and reverence. The thirteenth class includes the precepts concerning forbidden food and the like; we have given them in Hilkot maakalot asurot; the laws about vows and temperance belong also to this class. The object of all these laws is to restrain the growth of desire, the indulgence in seeking that which is pleasant, and the disposition to consider the appetite for eating and drinking as the end [of man’s existence]. We have explained this in our Commentary on the Mishnah, in the Introduction (chap. iv.) to The Sayings of the Fathers. The fourteenth class comprises the precepts concerning forbidden sexual intercourse; they are given in the section Nashim and Hilkot issure-biah. The laws concerning the intermixture of cattle belong to this class. The object of these precepts is likewise to diminish sexual intercourse, to restrain as much as possible indulgence in lust, and [to teach] that this enjoyment is not, as foolish people think, the final cause of man’s existence. We have explained this in our Commentary on The Sayings of the Fathers (Introd., chap. viii.). The laws about circumcision belong to this class. As is well known, the precepts are also divided into two classes, viz., precepts concerning the relation between man and God, and precepts concerning the relation between man and man. Of the classes into which we divide the precepts and which we have enumerated, the fifth, sixth, and seventh, and part of the third, include laws concerning the relation of man to man. The other classes contain the laws about the relation of man to God, i.e., positive or negative precepts, which tend to improve the moral or intellectual condition of mankind, or to regulate such of each man’s actions which [directly] only concern him and lead him to perfection. For these are called laws concerning man’s relation to God, although in reality they lead to results which concern also his fellow-men; because these results become only apparent after a long series of intermediate links, and from a general point of view; whilst directly these laws are not intended to prevent man from injuring his fellow-man. Note this. Having described the laws of these classes, I will now again consider the precepts of each class, and explain the reason and use of those which are believed to be useless or unreasonable, with the exception of a few, the object of which I have not yet comprehended.

The commandment to rejoice on the festivals: To rejoice on the festivals, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:14), “And you shall rejoice on your holiday.” And the first matter that is hinted in joy is that we offer peace-offerings regardless [of one’s circumstances] at the Choice House. And [this] is like the matter that is written (Deuteronomy 27:7), “And you shall offer peace-offerings” and it continues, “and you shall rejoice on your holiday.” And [concerning] the offering of peace-offerings, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chagigah 6b), “Women are obligated in joy” — meaning that even they are obligated to bring peace-offerings of joy. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Chagigah 8a), “Rejoice in all types of rejoicing.” And included in this is the eating of meat and the drinking of wine, to wear new clothes, the distribution of fruit and types of sweets to the youths and the women and to play musical instruments in the Temple alone — and that is the joy of the drawing house (simchat beit hashoevah) that is mentioned in the Gemara (Sukkah 50a). All that we mentioned is included in “And you shall rejoice on your holiday.” And they, may their memory be blessed, said in Tractate Pesachim 109a, “A man is obligated to gladden his children and the members of his household on a festival.” And it is said there, “It was taught, Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says, ‘At the time when the Temple is standing, joy is only with meat, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:7), “And you shall offer peace-offerings, etc.” Now [...] joy is only with wine, as it is stated (Psalms 104:15), “And wine gladdens the heart of man.”’” And they said further, “With what should one make them rejoice? Men with what is fit for them, with wine. And women with what is fit for them, with nice clothes.” And the Torah also warned us to include the poor and the strangers (converts) and the weak in the joy, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:14), “you, the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow.” It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because man is designed in [such] a way that his nature requires rejoicing occasionally, [just] like it requires nourishment in any case, and rest and sleep. And God wanted to give us — “His people and the flock of His grazing” — merit and [so] commanded us to make the rejoicing for His sake, so that we could merit in all of our deeds in front of Him. And behold, He fixed for us times during the year for holidays, to remember upon them the miracles and the goodnesses that He granted us. And He commanded us then at those times to support the physical with something of joy that it needs. And it comes out as a big remedy for us that the satiation of joyous occasions be for His sake and to remember Him; as this thought will be a fence, that we do not go further out than is enough from the straight path. And the one who has reflection without a desire to argue will find reason in my words. And I have written a few of the laws of the commandment above. And the rest of its details are in Tractate Chagigah and in [various] places scattered in the Gemara. And this commandment is practiced regarding the joy — but not regarding the sacrifice — in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and does not rejoice himself, the members of his household and the poor according to his ability, for the sake of the commandment of the festival, has nullified this positive commandment. And in the way that we mentioned did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Avot 2:17), “All of your actions should be for the sake of Heaven.”

The commandment of resting on the first day of Pesach: To rest on the first day of Pesach, as it states about it (Leviticus 22:7), “On the first day, a holy occasion.” And about all about which it is stated in the Torah, “a holy occasion,” they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 12:4), “Make it holy.” And the content of its holiness is that no work be done on it, except for that which is specific to eating; as the verse elucidated (Exodus 12:16), “but that which is eaten by every soul, that alone shall be done for you.” And the proof that the rest of the holiday is considered a positive commandment is their, may their memory be blessed, saying (Shabbat 25a), “This ‘shabbaton’ is a positive commandment.” And we learn from now that in every place that shabbaton is stated in the Torah with regards to a holiday, it is a positive commandment. And [what] also appears much in the Talmud is, “The holiday is a positive commandment and a negative commandment.” It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] in order that we think about the content of the holiday in the miracle that was done for us on it, and that we praise and laud in our thoughts the One, blessed be He, Who commanded us about it and did miracles for us at this time. And if a man is preoccupied in his work, he will not be free to think about anything. And we will further write at length about its root and its laws in the negative commandment of work on the holiday in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 288) with God’s help. And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and does work not for the needs of food for the soul has violated this positive commandment, besides that he violated a negative commandment - as we will write in its place. The laws of the commandment are elucidated in [Beitzah]. (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Rest on a Holiday 1.)

To not do work on the first day of Pesach: That we not do work on the first day of the holiday of Pesach — which is the fifteenth of Nissan — as it is stated (Leviticus 23:7), “On the first day, a holy occasion shall it be for you; all work of labor shall you not do.” And Scripture already warned about this in the Order of Bo el Pharaoh in the command of the holiday of Pesach; as it is stated there (Exodus 12:16), “all work shall not be done upon them.” And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, brought that verse (in Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 223) in his tally. But I have written this other one, so that the holidays be organized in one order. But it all comes to the same thing. And the verse stated here, “work of labor,” and it did not state, “all work” — since the needs of food for the soul were permitted to be done on the holiday; as Scripture comes in another place (Exodus 12:16), “but that which is eaten by every soul, that alone shall be done for you.” And this is the understanding of work of labor — meaning to say, work that is not for the needs of food for the soul, like the matter that is stated (Exodus 1:14), “labor in the field”; and so [too,] “Kain was a laborer of the field” (Genesis 4:2); “a king over a field that is labored” (Ecclesiastes 5:8); “labors his land” (Proverbs 12:11). But work that is for food for the soul like cooking and similar to it is work of enjoyment, not work of labor. So did Ramban, may his memory be blessed, explain. And he wrote further (Ramban on Leviticus 23:7) that this understanding is elucidated in the Torah [itself], since with the Festival of Matsot, [about which] it first stated, “all work shall not be done upon them” in the Order of Bo el Pharaoh, it was required to explain, “but that which is eaten by every soul, that alone shall be done for you.” But with all of the other holidays, it was brief and it stated, “all work of labor you shall not do,” to forbid all work that is not [for] food for the soul, and to inform that food for the soul is permitted on them. And Scripture did not ever state in one of the other holidays, “all work,” nor explain the permissibility of food for the soul — since “all work of labor” teaches about this. But in the section, Kol HaBekhor on the Festival of Matsot, it states (Deuteronomy 16:8), “and on the seventh day, it is a convocation to the Lord, your God; you shall not do work.” And the reason is because it already explicitly permitted food for the soul on this holiday in the Order of Bo el Pharaoh. And afterwards in this Order, it mentions “work of labor,” which also implies the permissibility of food for the soul. And therefore, when it repeated and mentioned it another time in the section of Kol HaBekhor, it was not needed for it to state a further explanation about it; and [so] it mentioned just, “work,” and relied on that which is known [from the earlier entries]. And nonetheless, it did not state, “all work,” as [it does] with Shabbat and Yom Kippur, but [rather just] stated, “work” — meaning to say, the work which I have warned you about. It is from the roots of the commandment that it is so that the great miracles that God, may He be blessed, did for them and for their forefathers be remembered, and that they speak about them and inform their children and the children of their children about them. As with the rest from the business of the world, they will be free to be involved with this. As if they were permitted work — and even light work — each and every one would turn to his business. And the honor of the festival would be forgotten from “the mouths of babes”; also from the mouths of adults. And there are also many [other] benefits to its rest: As all the people gather in the synagogues and study halls to listen to the words of the book, and the heads of the people guide them and teach them knowledge. And [it is] similar to that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Megillah 32a), “Moshe ordained for Israel that they should expound the laws of Pesach on Pesach and the Laws of [Shavuot] on [Shavuot and the laws of the Holiday (Sukkot) on the Holiday]. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Beitzah 28b) that even though Scripture permitted work for the sake of food for the soul, it is specifically things that are impossible to do from the eve of the holiday, such as kneading, slaughtering, baking [and] cooking — as all of these types of work become a little defective from delay [after them]. And likewise for this reason, they permitted to pound spices on the holiday, on account that their taste becomes fainter with delay after they are pounded. But it is forbidden to do types of work on the holiday that are possible to do from the eve of the holiday and do not deteriorate at all — such as harvesting, threshing, separating, grinding, sifting and what is similar to them; and they are not included in the needs of food for the soul at all. And we administer lashes for them like [for] plowing in the field — which is actually a work of labor. And the later commentators elucidated this matter further and said that truly that which is called the need of food for the soul is only that which is made for its day — meaning to say, for a short time, like cooking and baking and what is similar to it, as we have said — and also [only] that which a person’s mind relies upon to make for that time. [This is] to exclude hunting, as the mind of a man is not upon it, since perhaps game will not appear to him today. And they said further that that which we permit food for the soul with that which is made for that time — as we said — is only if he uses the body of the work. But if he uses the removal of the work, it is forbidden. And this is [the understanding of] that which they, may their memory be blessed, forbade (Beitzah 22a) to extinguish the log, even though his mind in extinguishing it is so that [the stew in] the pot not get smoky. And regarding the roasting of meat over coals — which is the bisra agumrei mentioned in the Gemara (Beitzah 23a) — even though the fire is extinguished from the [liquids] of the meat, this is not called using the removal of the work, since it is for the needs of the roasting to do this. And [so] he is using the body of the work and it is permissible. And so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Beitzah 12a) that included in the dispensation of the needs of food for the soul is not specifically food and drink only. Rather, even every thing that a person needs on the day: [Something] which is a matter of a commandment, such as to circumcise an infant, and a lulav to fulfill [the commandment] with it, and a Torah scroll to read from it — as each and every day is the time for Torah; or whether it is not a matter of a commandment but a need of the body on that day, such as the washing of the feet with hot water that was heated on the holiday or to make a fire to warm oneself with it. All of these things are permitted and included in the dispensation of food for the soul. So did our Sages, may their memory be blessed, explain (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Rest on a Holiday 1:16). And nonetheless it is specifically [regarding] things that are the same for all people’s bodies that we permit and we say that it is included in this dispensation of food for the soul — such as washing the feet, as everyone washes like this sometimes. But that which is not the same for every person, such as mugmar (a type of incense) — since not all people burn mugmar, as we say in Ketuvot 7a — is certainly forbidden [along with] all that is similar to it. And it is only in these things that we need that it be the same for every person. However regarding eating, every person is permitted to make even a food that is not its way to be made except by kings and great ministers — since the basic concept of eating is something that is the same for every soul. And so [too,] that which they said (Beitzah 2b) about the prohibition of preparation, that a holiday cannot prepare for Shabbat, nor a Shabbat prepare for a holiday. And you will only find a prohibition of preparation from Torah writ in my opinion — if you have studied the words of the Gemara well — with an egg alone. And its main prohibition is when it was born on a holiday after Shabbat or on a Shabbat after a holiday. In this way is the preparation of Rabbah established with an egg, and with this is there a Torah prohibition — and in no other way. As behold, that which we prohibit when it is born on Shabbat on the holiday that is after it, and so [too,] when it is born on the holiday on the Shabbat that is after it, and so [too,] when it is born on the holiday itself is [only] a rabbinic prohibition — and it is all on account of a decree [to make a fence for] the one that is born on a holiday after Shabbat, as we said. And the matter would be [too] lengthy if I came to write it with a broad elucidation. And in its place at the beginning of Beitzah, I have written at length about it, as my teachers — may God protect them — have taught me. And the law that it is forbidden to make tools that prepare food for the soul, on account of its being written (Exodus 12:16), “that alone” — and not what prepares it. And the law of inviting gentiles on a holiday (Beitzah 21b), which is forbidden, as it is written, “for you” — and not for gentiles. And so [too,] that we do not bake anything for dogs, as it is written, “for you” — and not for dogs. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Beitzah 4b) about the two days of the exiles — that an egg born on this one is permitted on that one; and that which is detached from the ground on this one is permitted on that one, as the [two days] are two [separate units of] holiness. And it is not like this on the two days of Rosh Hashanah. And the rest of its many details are all elucidated in the tractate that is built on this, and that is Tractate [Beitzah]. (See Tur, Orach Chaim 495.) And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and does work from the forbidden types of work on a holiday volitionally is liable for lashes.

And he bathed at the time when the wagons [kerona] were traveling through Tzippori, i.e., on the market day, when the public would know about it, on the seventeenth of Tammuz, to show that bathing is permitted on that day. And he sought to abolish the fast of the Ninth of Av. And with respect to the Ninth of Av, the Sages did not agree with him. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said to Rabbi Elazar: My teacher, the incident did not occur in this fashion. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi never sought to abolish the fast of the Ninth of Av. Rather, it was a year when the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat, and they postponed it until after Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said about that case: Since it has already been deferred from its usual time, let it be altogether deferred this year. And the Rabbis did not agree with him. Rabbi Elazar read the verse about Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: “Two are better than one” (Ecclesiastes 4:9), meaning, it is good that you were here to provide an accurate report about that incident. The Gemara asks: And how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi plant a sapling on Purim? Didn’t Rav Yosef teach with regard to the verse: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day [yom tov]” (Esther 9:19), that the term “gladness” teaches that it is prohibited to eulogize on Purim; “feasting” teaches that it is prohibited to fast; and the term “good day” [yom tov] teaches that it is prohibited to perform labor, just as on a Festival, which is also referred to as a yom tov? Rather, what happened was as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was in a place that observed Purim on the fourteenth, and when he planted the sapling, he planted it on the fifteenth. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Wasn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Tiberias, and Tiberias was surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun. Consequently, he was obligated to observe Purim on the fifteenth. Rather, say just the opposite: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lived in a place that observed Purim on the fifteenth, and when he planted the sapling, he planted it on the fourteenth. The Gemara asks: Was it obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the city of Tiberias was surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? Didn’t Hezekiah read the Megilla in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not? The Gemara answers: Hezekiah was indeed uncertain about the matter, whereas it was obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that Tiberias had been surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua. The Gemara asks further: And when it was obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the Megilla should be read in Tiberias on the fifteenth, was it permitted to plant there on the fourteenth? Isn’t it written in Megillat Ta’anit that the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day of Adar are the days of Purim, and one is not permitted to eulogize on them? And Rava said: This statement is necessary only to prohibit those who observe Purim on this day to eulogize on that day, and those who observe Purim on that day to eulogize on this day. Since the two days are mentioned in the Bible, it was only necessary to mention them in Megillat Ta’anit in order to indicate that the prohibition against eulogizing applies to both days. Presumably, the same should apply to the prohibition against performing labor. Consequently, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi plant a sapling on the fourteenth of Adar? The Gemara answers: That applies only to eulogies and fasting. However, labor is prohibited for only one day, either the fourteenth or the fifteenth, and no more. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav see a certain man planting flax on Purim, and cursed him, and the man’s flax never grew. The Gemara answers: There, the man was obligated to observe Purim on that day that he planted the flax. Therefore, it was certainly prohibited to perform labor. Rabba, son of Rava, said a different answer to the question: Even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi planted the sapling on his own day of Purim, i.e., on the day that the Megilla was read in his location, it was still permitted to plant the sapling. This is because the Jewish people accepted upon themselves the prohibitions against eulogizing and fasting on Purim, but they did not accept upon themselves the prohibition against performing labor. This can be proven from the fact that initially, when Mordecai and Esther proposed the celebration of Purim, it is written: “A day of gladness and feasting and a good day [yom tov]” (Esther 9:19), and at the end, when the celebration of Purim was accepted by the Jewish people, it is written: “That they should make them days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22), whereas the term good day [yom tov], which alludes to a day when it is prohibited to perform labor, is not written. The people never accepted upon themselves the prohibition against performing labor on Purim as if it were a Festival, and therefore the prohibition never took effect. The Gemara asks: If labor is permitted on Purim, what is the reason that Rav cursed that man who planted the flax? The Gemara answers: It was a case of matters that are permitted by halakha, but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, in which case one may not permit these actions in their presence, lest they come to treat other prohibitions lightly. In the place where that man planted his flax, it was customary to abstain from labor on Purim. However, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s place, it was not the custom to abstain from labor on Purim, and therefore it was permitted for him to plant the sapling even in public. And if you wish, say an alternative answer: Actually, it was the custom to abstain from labor on Purim in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s place, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi engaged in a joyful act of planting, for pleasure rather than for financial benefit. As we learned in a mishna with regard to public fasts: If these fasts for rain have passed and the community’s prayers have still not been answered, and the drought continues, one decreases his business activities, as well as construction, planting, betrothals, and marriages. And it was taught in a baraita about this mishna: When the Sages said that construction must be decreased on public fasts, they were not referring to the construction of homes for people who have nowhere to live, but to joyful construction. Similarly, when they said that planting must be decreased, they were not referring to planting food crops, but to joyful planting. What is meant by joyful construction? This is referring to one who builds a wedding chamber for his son. It was customary to build a special house where the wedding would take place, and at times the couple would also live there. What is meant by joyful planting? This is referring to one who plants trees for shade and pleasure such as one might find in a royal garden [avurneki]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi engaged in joyful planting on Purim, in keeping with the joyous nature of the day. § The Gemara examines the matter itself cited in the previous discussion. Hezekiah read the Megilla in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not. The Gemara asks: Was he really uncertain about the matter of Tiberias? Isn’t it written: “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth” (Joshua 19:35), and we maintain that Rakkath is Tiberias? The Gemara answers: This is the reason that he was uncertain: Although Tiberias was surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua, Hezekiah was uncertain about the halakha due to the fact that on one side, there was a wall of the sea, i.e., there was no physical wall, but the city was protected due to the fact that it adjoined the sea. The Gemara asks: If so, why was he uncertain? The sea is certainly not a wall. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the sale of houses in walled cities, the phrase: “Which has a wall” (Leviticus 25:30), indicates that the city has a bona fide wall and not merely a wall of roofs. If a city is completely encircled by attached houses but there is no separate wall, it is not considered a walled city. The next verse, which is referring to cities that have no wall “round about them” (Leviticus 25:31), excludes Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its wall on one side and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall. Consequently, Tiberias is not considered a walled city. The Gemara answers: With regard to the sale of houses of walled cities, Hezekiah was not uncertain. Where he was uncertain was with regard to the reading of the Megilla: What are the unwalled towns and what are the walled cities that are written with regard to the reading of the Megilla? Is the difference between them due to the fact that these unwalled towns are exposed, whereas those walled cities are not exposed? If so, since Tiberias is also exposed, as it is not entirely surrounded by a wall, it should be considered unwalled. Or perhaps the difference is due to the fact that these walled cities are protected, whereas those unwalled towns are not protected, and Tiberias is also protected by the sea and should be treated as a walled city. It was due to that reason that Hezekiah was uncertain when to read the Megilla. The Gemara relates that Rav Asi read the Megilla in the city of Huzal in Babylonia on both the fourteenth and the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not. Huzal was an ancient city, and it was possible that it had been surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua. Some say a different version of this report, according to which there was no uncertainty. Rav Asi said: This city of Huzal of the house of Benjamin was walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun. Incidental to the previous discussion concerning Tiberias, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When I was a child I said something that I later asked the Elders about,

You shall celebrate a sacred occasion on the first day, and a sacred occasion on the seventh day; no work at all shall be done on them; only what every person is to eat, that alone may be prepared for you.

YE SHALL DO NO MANNER OF ‘M’LECHETH AVODAH’ (SERVILE WORK). “[Not] even such work as is considered by you important and necessary work, because the neglect of it would involve a monetary loss, as for example a matter that will not permit delay. So I understood from the Torath Kohanim which teaches as follows:¹⁹⁹Torath Kohanim, Emor 12:6. ‘I might think that on intermediate days of the festival²⁰⁰I.e., the mid-festival days, or the half-festive days between the first and the last days of Passover or of Succoth. it is also forbidden to do m’lecheth avodah (servile work) etc’”²⁰¹Scripture therefore states with reference to the first and last days of Passover and of Succoth, that it is on them that servile work is forbidden, but not on the intermediate days of the festival. This is Rashi’s language.
But this is not correct at all. For what reason is there that Scripture should say, “Do not do [on the festival days even] such work that will not permit delay,” and [the prohibition for] all other labors be deduced by a kal vachomer²⁰²I.e. an argument from minor to major. “If work that will not permit delay is forbidden, then surely it is all the more so forbidden if the work can be delayed till after the festival.” See in Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208, on kal vachomer. and if so it would have been proper to say it in the same way in the case of the Sabbath too! [However, with reference to the Sabbath it says Ye shall do ‘no manner’ of ‘m’lachah’ (work), and it does not say m’lecheth avodah (servile work) as in the case of the festivals!] Moreover, if it be [as Rashi explained it], then there is an allusion in the Torah to the effect that on the intermediate days of the festival it is permissible to do work that will not permit delay, but the Rabbis have said,²⁰³Chagigah 18 a. “Scripture has handed over this matter [of determining which activities are forbidden and which are permitted on the intermediate days of the festival] only to the Sages,” which means that there is no allusion in the Torah as to which work is permitted and which is forbidden! Again, the term avodah (work) includes all kinds of labors and purposes, [as the following verses indicate]: ‘oveid’ (he that tilleth) his ground shall have plenty of bread;²⁰⁴Proverbs 12:11. ‘va’avadcha’ (he shall serve thee) six years;²⁰⁵Deuteronomy 15:12. ‘v’avad’ta’ (thou shalt serve) thine enemy²⁰⁶Ibid., 28:48. — and nowhere does the term avodah mean only work that permits no delay, which, if not done today, can no longer be done on the following day [as Rashi had written]!
Rather, the meaning of m’lecheth avodah (servile work) is all work that is not necessary in the preparation of food, similar to that which it is said, Six days ‘ta’avod (shalt thou labor), and do all thy work;²⁰⁷Exodus 20:9. and in all ‘avodah’ (manner of work) in the field;²⁰⁸Ibid., 1:14. ‘v’ne’evadtem’ (and ye shall be tilled) and sown;²⁰⁹Ezekiel 36:9. but Cain was an ‘oved’ (tiller) of the ground.²¹⁰Genesis 4:2. But work which is done in preparation of food is work of direct benefit, and is not [called] m’lecheth avodah (servile work). This [distinction] is clearly explained in the Torah. For with reference to the Festival of Unleavened Bread where He said at first, no manner of work shall be done in them,²¹¹Exodus 12:16. it was necessary to explain [in the same verse], Save that which every man must eat, that only may be done by you; therefore with respect to the other festivals He shortened [the command] and said [as in the verse before us], ye shall do no manner of servile work, thus prohibiting all work which is not done in preparation of food, and informing us that the preparation of food is permissible on the festival days. And in no place does Scripture say concerning any of the festival days, that “no manner of work” [shall be done on it] without explaining [immediately] that the preparation of food is permissible on it, because the form m’lecheth avodah (servile work) establishes that principle.²¹²In other words, when the Torah states concerning any festival, “no manner of ‘servile work’ shall be done on it,” that establishes already the permission to prepare necessary food, since such work is not ‘m’lecheth avodah’ (servile work). But where Scripture states concerning a festival, “no manner ‘of work’ shall be done on it” [an expression which is similar to that stated concerning the Sabbath], then it is always followed with a permission for the preparing of necessary food, since the term “work” is inclusive of all labors. However, in the section of All the firstling males²¹³Deuteronomy 15:19. [where all the festivals are mentioned], He states with reference to the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the Eternal thy G-d; thou shalt do no work therein²¹⁴Ibid., 16:8. [and yet Scripture does not follow it up with a permission for preparing food]! The reason for this is that He had already clearly permitted²¹⁵In Exodus 12:16 — quoted above. the preparation of food on it [Passover], and it was therefore no longer necessary [there in the section of All the firstling males] to say in connection with it: “all manner of servile work.” He mentioned there merely “work” (thou shalt do no ‘work’ therein),²¹⁴Ibid., 16:8. and did not say kol m’lachah (“all work” or “any manner of work”) as He said with reference to the Sabbath¹⁷⁶Verse 3. and the Day of Atonement,²¹⁶Further, Verse 28. because the intention is, “Do not do that work about which I have admonished you [elsewhere, i.e., ‘servile work’].”
Now Rabbi Chananel²¹⁷See above in Seder Kedoshim Note 286. It is important to note that in the printed editions of Ramban the text here is “Rabbi Abraham” (ibn Ezra) instead of “Rabbi [or Rabbeinu] Chananel,” as found in Ramban manuscripts. It is, however, not found at all in Ibn Ezra’s commentaries, thus proving that the correct reading is “Rabbeinu Chananel.” Ramban’s interpretation of the term m’lecheth avodah, as substantiated by Rabbeinu Chananel, has had a wide influence on the whole concept of “work” on the festivals (see an article of mine in “Hadarom,” No. 34, pp. 234-237). wrote: “Do no manner of ‘m’lecheth avodah’ (servile work). This teaches that He only permitted [on a festival day] the preparation of food, as it is written in connection with this matter in another place: And in the first day [of Passover] there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them.²¹¹Exodus 12:16. And because He mentioned there any manner of work [which indicates a prohibition covering even preparation of food], it was essential that He should explain [in the same verse]: save that which every man must eat, that only may be done by you. The meaning of m’lecheth avodah is work for the purpose of material possessions, such as sowing, harvesting, digging and the like, but the preparation of food is not m’lecheth avodah.” This is Rabbeinu Chananel’s language.
And the Beraitha in the Torath Kohanim [which Rashi quoted at the beginning of the section] is taught as follows in the correct texts thereof:²¹⁸Torath Kohanim, Emor 12:5-8. See also in Vol. II, p. 106, Note 45 on Rabbeinu Chananel. “Do no manner of ‘m’lecheth avodah.’²¹⁹Verse 36. See my Hebrew commentary p. 145, that this is the correct reading here. It is this verse which is clearly referred to by Ramban when he begins the interpretation of the Beraitha. This is intended to elucidate [the law] about the intermediate days of the festival, that it is prohibited to do work on them. I might think that any manner of m’lecheth avodah (servile work) is forbidden on them. Scripture therefore states it [i.e., the eighth day of Tabernacles, is a day of solemn assembly],²²⁰Further, Verse 36. See my Hebrew commentary p. 145. meaning: it is a day on which all manner of servile work is forbidden, but on the intermediate days [of the festival] such work is not forbidden. These are the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean. Rabbi Akiba says: What need is there for Scripture to say: These are the appointed seasons of the Eternal which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations?²²¹Further, Verse 37. If it refers to the festivals, they are each stated [separately]! If so, why is it said, These are the appointed seasons of the Eternal, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations? This refers to the intermediate days of the festival, on which the doing of work is forbidden. I might think that all manner of servile work is forbidden to be done on them. Scripture therefore states, it etc.”²²⁰Further, Verse 36. See my Hebrew commentary p. 145. [as quoted above].
The explanation of this Beraitha is [as follows]: Rabbi Yosei the Galilean interprets the verses, Ye shall do [no manner of servile work],²²⁰Further, Verse 36. See my Hebrew commentary p. 145. and These are the appointed seasons of the Eternal,²²¹Further, Verse 37. as meaning that Scripture prohibits the doing of work on all [the days] which are termed “the appointed festivals of the Eternal.” Thus I might think that they are all alike with respect to this prohibition, and that any manner of servile work is prohibited to be done on [the intermediate days of the festival] just as on the first and eighth days [of Tabernacles], and [then] we would interpret the verses thus: Ye shall do no manner of servile work. These are the appointed seasons of the Eternal,²²²Verses 36 and 37 are thus combined to yield this thought. since a verse may be interpreted together with an antecedent phrase or even together with a penultimate phrase.²²³Shabbath 32 b. In the case before us, Verse 37 [These are the appointed seasons of the Eternal] is explained by an antecedent phrase in Verse 36 [Ye shall do no manner of servile work]. Ramban in speaking of “a penultimate phrase” is merely completing the quotation of the Talmudic saying, but the intent here is perforce to “an antecedent phrase.” It is for this reason that Scripture excludes it by saying, ‘it’ is a day of solemn assembly; ye shall do no manner of servile work,²²¹Further, Verse 37. meaning: “the eighth day [of Tabernacles] is restricted as regards all servile work, but on the intermediate days of the festival the prohibition is not like that of [the eighth day], affecting all manner of ‘servile work,’ but it is only ‘work’ which He said they must not do,” and [the precise nature of the work forbidden on the intermediate days of the festival] Scripture did not mention, nor did it allude to it at all, but entrusted it to the Sages [to establish which work is permitted and which is prohibited]. The text which Rashi brings [further on in Verse 36]²²⁴“Ye shall do no manner of servile work. I might think that it is forbidden to do servile work also on the intermediate days of the festival. Scripture therefore states it (the eighth day of Tabernacles) is a day of solemn assembly [but not the intermediate days]” (Rashi, Verse 36). is also to be explained in this way.
This Beraitha [of the Torath Kohanim] is taught in the Gemara of Tractate Chagigah in the following way:²²⁵Chagigah 18 a. “Ye shall do no manner of servile work.²²⁶Verse 8, referring to the seventh day of Passover, which is a full festival day as is the eighth day of Tabernacles. This teaches us about the intermediate days of the festival, that it is forbidden to do work [on them]. These are the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean. Rabbi Akiba says etc.” [as quoted above]. And there [in Tractate Chagigah] it is further taught: “Just as [servile work] is forbidden on the seventh day [of Passover], so also it is forbidden on the sixth day; if so [I might think], just as the seventh day is restricted with respect to all work,²²⁷As it is stated in Deuteronomy 16:8 with reference to the Passover: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly … thou shalt do no work therein. Since it does not state “servile work,” the restriction would seem to apply to “all work,” as the Gemara expresses it. Now Ramban has already explained above that the real intention of this verse in Deuteronomy is “servile work,” and the reason why it mentions “work,” is because Scripture has already explained (in Exodus 12:16 — see Note 215), that it applies specifically to “servile work.” The argument of the Gemara, however, merely proceeds on the basis of the expression as stated there in Deuteronomy. Further on in the text Ramban will again remove this difficulty in accordance with this line of thought, by saying that the Gemara is merely following the expressio of the verse. so also the sixth day [as well as the other intermediate days of the festival] are restricted with respect to all work. Scripture therefore states ‘ha’shvi’i’, (‘the’ seventh day),²²⁸Deuteronomy 16:8. The definite article in [ha’shvi’i] is limiting, meaning: only on the seventh day are you so restricted, but not on the preceding intermediate days. meaning: “the seventh day is restricted with regard to all work, but the sixth day is not restricted with respect to all work, for Scripture entrusted [the determining of which work is permitted and which is forbidden] only to the Sages, etc.” Now the Gemara states that [on the seventh day of the festival we are] restricted against doing “all work,” but the Torath Kohanim [mentioned above] states “all servile work.” This is because in the interpretation [of the Gemara] the Sages chose the wording of the Scriptural text [and since in Deuteronomy 16:8 it says with reference to the seventh day of Passover, thou shalt do no ‘work’ therein, the Gemara followed that expression, but the intention is really only to “servile work”], for with respect to a festival it cannot be said that “all work” is forbidden therein, but only “all servile work.” Thus both [the Torath Kohanim and the Gemara] meant the same thing, namely, that on the festival days all manner of servile work is forbidden, but on the intermediate days of the festival all manner of servile work is not forbidden; however, forbidden are those kinds of labor which [although] have not been set forth in the Torah, but which Scripture entrusted to the Sages [to be specified as forbidden].
And in the Sifre [we have been taught]:²²⁹Sifre, R’eih 135. “Rabbi Yishmael says: Since we have not been instructed that on the intermediate days of a festival it is forbidden to do work, therefore Scripture states, Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly,²¹⁴Ibid., 16:8. [thus teaching that] just as the seventh day is restricted [as regarding work], so also is the sixth day [and all intermediate days of the festival] restricted. Now I might think that just as the seventh day is restricted with regard to all work, so also is the sixth day restricted with regard to all work. Scripture therefore states ‘the’ seventh day,²²⁸Deuteronomy 16:8. The definite article in [ha’shvi’i] is limiting, meaning: only on the seventh day are you so restricted, but not on the preceding intermediate days. thus teaching that the seventh day is restricted with regard to all work, but the sixth day is not restricted with respect to all work.” This Beraitha too [speaking of “all work” being prohibited on the seventh day of Passover] is to be explained in accordance with the principle we have laid down [i.e., that the intention is “all servile work,” the Beraitha merely following the language of the verse, as explained above]. Thus we have discussed at length the matter of the Beraithoth dealing with this subject, in order that the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, should conform with the clear and correct interpretation which we have said of these verses.
Yet despite all this, I have found a contradiction to our words from a Beraitha taught in the Sifre:²³⁰Ibid., Pinchas 147. “Ye shall do no manner of ‘m’lecheth avodah’ (servile work).²³¹Numbers 28:18 (with respect to the first day of Passover). This teaches that the doing of work [on the first day of Passover] is forbidden. How do we know that the preparation of food is permitted thereon? Here it is stated a holy convocation [In the first day shall be ‘a holy convocation'; ye shall do no manner of servile work], and there²³²In Exodus 12:16. it is said [with respect to the same day] a holy convocation. Now just as there [the verse explicitly] permits preparing food, so here too the intention is to permit the preparation of food [on the same day].”²³³Now this Beraitha is clearly in contradiction to Ramban’s opinion above, that the term ‘m’lecheth avodah’ (servile work) does not include a prohibition against preparing necessary food on a festival. For if so, seeing that with respect to the first day of Passover it states in Numbers 28:18: Ye shall do no manner of ‘m’lecheth avodah,’ why then did the Sifre have to search for a special source to establish the permissibility of preparing necessary food? Ramban will now proceed to remove this contradiction.
It appears to me that the term avodah was understood by our Rabbis, of blessed memory, in the sense of labor and toil which one does for another, [the usage being] similar to these expressions: ‘avodath aved’ (the work of a bondservant);²³⁴Further, 25:39. ‘eved avadim’ (a servant of servants) shall he be unto his brethren;²³⁵Genesis 9:25. ‘avdu’ (they served) Chedorlaomer.²³⁶Ibid., 14:4. Similarly: ‘avodath avodah va’avodath masa’ (the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens),²³⁷Numbers 4:47. which means the work of any task in the Tent [of Meeting], and the work of [bearing] burdens upon the shoulder. If so, it would be possible [to think] that light works which one does for one’s own enjoyment are permissible, even though they are not for the preparation of food, while those difficult labors done in the course of preparation of food, which a servant performs for his master, are forbidden to be done. Therefore this [Beraitha just quoted from the Sifre] asked: “Whence do we know that this permission [for certain works] refers to preparation of food, so that all work done in the preparation of food is permissible, even if it involves difficult labor, and that we should prohibit all other kinds of work, for even the easiest of them are called m’lecheth avodah? From the similarity of phrases, a holy convocation, for there²³²In Exodus 12:16. it is indicated that all works [even easy ones] are prohibited, and all works done for the preparation of food [even those difficult tasks that a servant does for his master, such as cooking, baking, etc.] are permitted to be done.”
Now I have seen the following text taught in the Mechilta:²³⁸Mechilta, Pis’cha 9. “Save that which every man must eat, that only may be done by you.²³²In Exodus 12:16. All works necessary for the preparation of food overrule the festival, but not all Services [in the Sanctuary, as will be explained] overrule the festival. Now [the argument may be advanced]: Let some works done for the preparation of food overrule the Sabbath! And the following reasoning would favor it: If in a situation when all Services do not overrule the festival, nonetheless all works necessary for the preparation of food do overrule the festival, then in the situation where some Services [in the Sanctuary] do overrule the Sabbath, is it not logical that some works done for the preparation of food overrule the Sabbath! Scripture therefore states, Save that which every man must eat, [that only may be done by you.²³²In Exodus 12:16. — on the festival, but not on the Sabbath. It is thus established that although] some Services [in the Sanctuary] overrule the Sabbath, no work for the preparation of food may overrule the Sabbath.” Now the meaning of the phrase [in the Beraitha] “some Services [in the Sanctuary which overrule the Sabbath],” is such things as offerings which are obligatory for the day, these being the Daily Whole-offering and the Additional Offerings; “but the festival is not overruled by all Services [in the Sanctuary],” these are vow-offerings and freewill-offerings [of individuals], or a freewill burnt-offering [which, although wholly for the altar, may yet not be offered on a festival]. But the meaning of the phrase [“is it not logical that] some works for the preparation of food [overrule the Sabbath]” has not been clarified to me. However, it alludes to what we have said, that work which is accomplished by means of great toil, akin to work [which a servant does for his master], is included in the prohibition, but that which is accomplished easily, and is customary for a man to do for himself, is permitted; or “some works” may mean [those necessary] for maintenance of life, and “all works” may mean abundance of dishes for pleasure. The principle then of ‘m’lecheth avodah’ [servile work — stated in the case of the festivals], is thus to permit the preparation of food [since that is not within the terms of “servile work” which is forbidden on the festival].

the offering is accepted on condition that he burn the sacrificial parts that are brought upon the altar in the evening and not during the day. The wording of the baraita indicates that if the meat may not be eaten on that day, then only if he already sprinkled the blood, i.e., after the fact, yes, it is permitted; however, he may not sprinkle it ab initio. Granted, according to the opinion of Rava it works out well, but according to the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, it is difficult. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult. And if you wish, say instead: A rabbinic decree concerning Shabbat is different from a rabbinic decree concerning a Festival, as the Sages were more stringent with regard to Shabbat than with regard to Festivals. § Rav Avya the Elder raised the following dilemma before Rav Huna: If an animal is owned in partnership, half of it belonging to a gentile and half of it to a Jew, what is the halakha with regard to slaughtering it on a Festival? Rav Huna said to him: It is permitted. Rav Avya said to him: And what is the difference between this case and that of vow-offerings and gift-offerings? Vow-offerings and gift-offerings are similar to jointly owned animals, as part of the animal is sacrificed upon the altar while the other part is eaten by the owner and the priest. Why, then, is it not similarly permitted to slaughter them on a Festival? Seeking to distract Rav Avya so that he need not answer his question, Rav Huna said to him: Look, a raven flies in the sky. When Rav Avya left, Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said to his father: Was this not Rav Avya the Elder, whom Master would recommend to us, saying that he is a great man? If so, why did you treat him in that manner and evade his question? Rav Huna said to him: What should I have done for him? Today I am in a state best described by the verse: “Let me lean against the stout trunks; let me couch among the apple trees” (Song of Songs 2:5), meaning I am worn out and exhausted from all the communal responsibility that has fallen upon me, and he asked me about something that requires reasoning and careful examination, and therefore I could not provide an immediate answer. The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the reason? The Gemara explains the difference between a jointly owned animal and a vow-offering or gift-offering: A jointly owned animal, half of which belongs to a gentile and half to a Jew, may be slaughtered on a Festival, as it is impossible to obtain an olive-bulk of meat without slaughtering. If a Jew wishes to eat even a small portion of meat, he has no alternative but to slaughter an entire animal, even though he will not use all of it. Therefore, it does not matter if part of the animal belongs to a gentile. However, it is prohibited to slaughter vow-offerings and gift-offerings on a Festival, because in this case there is no real joint ownership of the animal, as the priests, when they receive their portions of the meat of the offering, and similarly, when Israelites partake of the offering, they receive their portions from the table of the Most High. In other words, the entire offering belongs to God, and those who partake of it are considered guests at His table; and as stated above, one may not slaughter an animal on a Festival for the sake of God. In continuation of the previous discussion, Rav Ḥisda said: A jointly owned animal, half of which belongs to a gentile and half to a Jew, may be slaughtered on a Festival because it is impossible to obtain an olive-bulk of meat without slaughtering. However, with regard to dough, half of which belongs to a gentile and half to a Jew, it is prohibited to bake it on a Festival, as it is possible for him to divide it in half during the kneading and bake only the part that belongs to the Jew. Rav Ḥana bar Ḥanilai raised an objection from the following mishna: Dough for bread that is meant for dogs, when it is of such quality that even shepherds eat of it, is considered like regular bread. Accordingly, one is obligated to separate ḥalla from such dough, and one may use it to establish an eiruv, i.e., a joining of courtyards and a joining of Shabbat boundaries, and to establish a merging of alleyways, and one recites a blessing before and after eating it, and one invites those with whom he ate to recite Grace after Meals after eating it, and it may be baked on a Festival, like all foods fit for human consumption, and a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover with it if it has not leavened. With regard to the allowance to bake this dough, the Gemara asks: And why may it be baked on a Festival? Isn’t it possible to divide it during the kneading, so that he bakes only the portion to be eaten by people and leaves aside the part given to dogs? The Gemara answers: Dough for bread meant for dogs is different, since it is possible to appease them with a carcass. It is possible that one of his animals will die, and he will feed the carcass to the dogs, in which case all of the dough will be eaten by people. The Gemara challenges this explanation: Does Rav Ḥisda accept the principle of since, i.e., that since it is possible that the situation may change, the halakha is not determined based on the current circumstances? But wasn’t it stated that the amora’im disagreed about the halakha governing one who intentionally bakes on a Festival day for a weekday? Rav Ḥisda said: He is flogged for desecrating the Festival. Rabba said: He is not flogged. The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav Ḥisda said that he is flogged because he holds that we do not say that since, if guests happen to visit him, whatever he bakes will be fit for him on the Festival itself, now too, although guests have not yet arrived, it is considered fit for him. According to that logic, baking would not be considered a full-fledged transgression, and one cannot be forewarned about it and does not receive lashes. Rabba, however, said: He is not flogged, as he holds that we do say the principle of: Since. As Rav Ḥisda himself does not accept the principle of since, how can it be used to resolve a difficulty raised against him? Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer: Do not say that dough for dogs is different, since it is possible that one of his animals will die and he will appease the dogs with the carcass. Rather, the reference here is to a case where he has a carcass ready, so that it is certainly possible to appease them with the carcass. Consequently, when the shepherds bake the dough, it is highly likely that they will consume it all themselves. § They raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: With regard to the Jewish residents of a village [baga] upon whom the authorities imposed the obligation to supply flour and bread to the gentile military troops serving in the area, what is the halakha with regard to baking it on a Festival? Rav Huna said to them: We examine the matter: If those villagers can give bread from the soldiers’ quota to a child and the soldiers are not particular about it, then each and every one of the loaves is fit for a Jewish child, and therefore it is permitted to bake them. But if the soldiers do not allow anyone else to partake of their bread, it is prohibited to bake the loaves for them on a Festival. The Gemara challenges Rav Huna’s lenient ruling: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Shimon the Timnite, who did not come on the night of the Festival to the study hall. In the morning, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava found him and said to him: Why did you not come last night to the study hall? He said to him: A military unit on a search mission [balleshet] came to our city and wanted to pillage the entire city. We slaughtered a calf in order to placate them, and we fed them with it and had them depart in peace. Rav Yehuda ben Bava said to him: I wonder if your gain, that which you saved by preventing the soldiers from taking your possessions, was not outweighed by your loss, the punishment for your desecration of the Festival. As the Torah states: “Only that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16), which indicates that food may be prepared for you, but not for gentiles. The Gemara asks: But why did Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava say this? Wasn’t some portion of the calf fit to be eaten by them? The conclusion seems to be that even if a Jew may eat from an animal, it may not be slaughtered on a Festival for the sake of a gentile. Rav Yosef said: In that case it was a calf with a condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which may not be eaten by Jews. The Gemara challenges: But wasn’t it still fit to be eaten by dogs, and it could be argued that it was slaughtered for the sake of dogs belonging to Jews? The Gemara answers: The question of whether or not one may perform prohibited labor on a Festival for the sake of dogs is a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: It is written: “Only that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you.” By inference, from that which is stated: “Every soul,” I might derive that even the soul of an animal is included, similar to that which is stated: “And he that kills the soul of an animal shall pay it” (Leviticus 24:18), indicating that the life force of an animal is also called a soul. Therefore, the verse states and emphasizes: “For you,” indicating for you, but not for dogs; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: When the verse states “every soul,” it comes to teach that even the soul of an animal is included. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states “for you”? It means for you, but not for gentiles. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include dogs among those on whose behalf one is permitted to perform a labor on a Festival, and to exclude gentiles? The Gemara explains: I include dogs because the responsibility for their sustenance is incumbent upon you, as one is obligated to feed the animals in his possession; and I exclude gentiles because the responsibility for their sustenance is not incumbent upon you. With regard to this baraita, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said that the verse indicates: “For you,” but not for dogs, how are we permitted to cast date stones to animals on a Festival? Since date stones are not fit for human consumption, they should be considered muktze, and therefore it should be prohibited to handle them. Rav Yosef said to him: Since they are fit for fuel, they may be handled, and therefore they may also be given to animals. Abaye objected: This works out well in the case of dry date stones; but in the case of moist ones, which are not suited for fuel, what is there to say? He said to him: They are fit for a large fire, which dries them out, after which they burn well. Abaye raised another objection: This works out well in the case of a Festival, when it is permitted to fuel a fire, but in the case of Shabbat, what is there to say? Why should one be permitted to handle date stones on Shabbat? Rav Yosef answered: We carry them along with bread. We place the date stones upon a loaf of bread and move them together with it. This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A person may perform all his needs with bread; as long as the bread remains edible, he need not be concerned that he is treating the bread contemptuously. The Gemara comments: And the ruling of Rav Huna that one is permitted to bake for gentiles on a Festival if they allow a Jew to eat of the bread differs from the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One may invite a gentile for a meal on Shabbat, as he will certainly not cook for him on Shabbat, and it is permitted to give a gentile food that was prepared the day before. But one may not invite a gentile for a meal on a Festival; this is prohibited as a preventive measure lest he come to cook more for the gentile’s sake. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that one may not prepare more for a gentile, even if the meal is primarily meant for Jews. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Even on Shabbat as well, one may not invite a gentile for a meal due to the wine remnants in the cups. Once a gentile has drunk wine from a cup, whatever remains in the cup may not be used and is therefore considered muktze. Therefore, a Jew may not host a gentile on Shabbat lest he come to handle the muktze wine remnants on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, our cups should also be prohibited, as they too contain wine remnants that have no use whatsoever and should therefore be considered muktze. The Gemara answers: The remnants in our cups are fit for chickens. The Gemara objects: If so, the remnants in their cups are also fit for chickens. The Gemara rejects this argument: The remnants in their cups are items from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit whatsoever; consequently, they may not be handled at all. The Gemara asks: And let him move what remains of the wine on account of the cup, which is a vessel that may be handled, as the wine remnants should be considered nullified in relation to the cup. Didn’t Rava say: One may move a coal pan [kannuna] on account of the ashes that can be used to cover filth, even though there are broken pieces of wood on it that have no use? This indicates that one may move something that is muktze along with something else that one is permitted to handle. The Gemara rejects this argument: There is a difference between the two cases. There, the broken sticks are not items from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit but are merely muktze, whereas here, what remains of the wine in the gentile’s cup is an item from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit, and therefore the prohibition is more stringent. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But let it be like a chamber pot for feces, which may be removed from a room because it is repulsive. One should likewise be permitted to discard the remnants of these cups, since it is unseemly to leave them on the table. Ravina said to him: If the cups contain such remnants, they may be removed, but may one make a chamber pot for feces ab initio? The Sages ruled that one may not invite a gentile for a meal on Shabbat so as to avoid such complications. In summary of this halakha, the Gemara states that Rava authorized the Sage Mar Shmuel, from the house of the Exilarch, to deliver a public lecture, and the latter taught: One may invite a gentile for a meal on Shabbat, but one may not invite a gentile for a meal on a Festival as a preventive measure, lest he come to cook more for his sake. It is related about Mareimar and Mar Zutra that when a gentile would happen to come to their house on a Festival, they would say to him: If you are satisfied with the food that we have prepared for ourselves, good; and if not, we will not go to any extra trouble on your account. MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A person may not heat water on a Festival in order to wash his feet unless it is also fit for drinking, as they hold that kindling a fire on a Festival is permitted only for the sake of preparing food, but not for washing. But Beit Hillel permit one to kindle a fire on a Festival even for washing. A person may kindle a large fire and warm himself at it. GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: This halakha with regard to a fire, who taught it? Is it a statement accepted by all, including Beit Shammai, and Beit Shammai differentiate between benefit affecting one’s entire body and benefit affecting a single limb, so that they agree that kindling a fire to heat one’s entire body is similar to kindling a fire for food and is therefore permitted, while heating water to wash one’s feet remains prohibited? Or perhaps Beit Hillel taught it, but Beit Shammai do not differentiate between the two cases, and they permit kindling a fire on a Festival only for the purpose of preparing food. Come and hear a proof from an explicit baraita: Beit Shammai say: A person may not make a fire and warm himself at it, but Beit Hillel permit it. It is clear from here that the latter clause of the mishna was taught only in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel was stringent about three things in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai: One may not insulate hot food on a Festival for Shabbat ab initio, but rather one ought to do so on the eve of the Festival; and one may not set up a metal candelabrum that fell on a Festival; and one may not bake thick loaves on a Festival but only thin ones, due to the great effort entailed in preparing the former. Rabban Gamliel said: From the days of my father’s household they would never bake thick loaves on a Festival, but only thin ones. The Sages said to him: What shall we do for your father’s household, who were stringent with themselves but lenient with all of the Jewish people, to allow them to bake thick loaves and cakes baked on coals. GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s statement that Rabban Gamliel would not permit the insulation of hot water on a Festival ab initio, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where he prepared a joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], what is the reason that Beit Shammai prohibit it? And if it speaks of a case where he did not set aside an eiruv tavshilin, what is the reason for the lenient ruling of Beit Hillel? Rav Huna said: Actually, I will say to you that the mishna is referring to a case where one did not prepare an eiruv tavshilin, but Beit Hillel hold that the Sages nevertheless permitted him to prepare what he needs for his basic sustenance. The Gemara comments: And Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Huna said: With regard to one who did not prepare an eiruv tavshilin on the eve of a Festival, others may bake one loaf of bread for him, and cook one pot of food for him,

One Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that we issue a decree and prohibit a hinge in the middle due to a hinge on the side; and one Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that we do not issue this decree. Since placing a hinge of this type does not constitute the prohibited labor of building, it is permitted. MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may carry out on a Festival neither a minor child, nor a lulav, nor a Torah Scroll into the public domain, as none of these are required for the preparation of food; and Beit Hillel permit it. GEMARA: The tanna who reviews mishnayot teaches a baraita before Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi: One who slaughters a gift offering on a Festival is flogged for transgressing the prohibition: “No manner of work shall be done on them” (Exodus 12:16). Since this slaughtering was not performed for the purpose of eating, the action constitutes a prohibited labor on a Festival. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to that tanna: Who could have said this baraita to you? It is evidently in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that we do not say: Since carrying out was permitted on a Festival for the purpose of food preparation, it was also permitted not for that purpose. For if you say the baraita is accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, they say: Since carrying out was permitted for the requirements of food preparation, it was also permitted not for these requirements. Here, too, with regard to the prohibited labor of slaughtering, since slaughter was permitted for the requirements of food preparation, it was also permitted not for these requirements. It was permitted for any purpose that benefits people, whether directly or indirectly. Rabba strongly objects to this reasoning: From where do you infer that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree over this issue? Perhaps they disagree about the following: The halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but there are no halakhot of eiruv nor a prohibition against carrying out on a Festival. The Gemara clarifies the dispute according to this explanation: One Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that the halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, and similarly the halakhot of eiruv and carrying out apply to a Festival. The only difference is that, on a Festival, carrying, like other types of prohibited labor, is permitted for the sake of food preparation. And one Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that the halakhot of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but there are no halakhot of eiruv nor a prohibition against carrying out on a Festival, as it is written: “Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Shabbat day” (Jeremiah 17:22), from which Beit Hillel inferred: On Shabbat, yes, carrying from one domain to another is indeed prohibited; on a Festival, no, it is not prohibited. According to this explanation, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about whether a prohibited labor that is permitted for the purpose of food preparation on a Festival is also permitted when it does not serve that purpose. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation of Rabba: However, if that is so, that the dispute is whether the prohibition against carrying out applies on a Festival, Beit Hillel should permit one to move muktze objects, as the prohibition of handling muktze is an extension of the prohibition against carrying out. Consequently, let them differ with regard to whether or not it is permitted to carry out stones on a Festival. Rather, from the fact that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to stones but concerning objects that serve some sort of purpose, conclude from this: Everyone agrees that carrying out is prohibited on a Festival, and the Torah permitted it only when it is necessary for sustenance. Instead, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to carrying out that is not for the purpose of food preparation. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, since carrying out is permitted for the sake of sustenance, it is entirely permitted. According to Beit Shammai, the Sages permitted only labor that serves the purpose of food preparation. The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the principle: Since carrying out is permitted on a Festival for the purpose of food preparation, it was also permitted not for this purpose, as the tanna teaches a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: One who cooks the sciatic nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged for violating five distinct prohibitions. How so? (1) He is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking the sciatic nerve, which is prohibited because the sciatic nerve is unfit for consumption; (2) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, which is explicitly prohibited by the Torah; (3) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking meat in milk; (4) and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk; (5) and lastly, he is flogged

מתוך שהותרה לצורך — Since it was permitted for a need

OVERVIEW
רב פפי assumed the reason רב פפא ruled מותר לבעול בתחלה ביו״ט is since חבורה is permitted on יו״ט for a need, it is also permitted when there is no need. תוספות qualifies this leniency of ׳מתוך׳, that there must be some need.
-----------------------–

פירוש¹
The term פירוש here is negating the view that מתוך applies even when there is no צורך כלל as תוס׳ mentions shortly.
לצורך אוכל נפש²
These include the מלאכות of שוחט, מבעיר, מבשל, מוציא, etc.
הותרה נמי שלא לצורך אוכל נפש –
The explanation of the phrase מתוך שהותרה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך is, that since a מלאכה is permitted for the sake of providing food for a person, it is also permitted even if there is no need of אוכל נפש — ובלבד שיהא צורך הנאת היום או צורך קיום מצוה ביום טוב –
Provided that a need of enjoying the יום טוב, or a need to fulfil a מצוה, which needs to be done on יו״ט, is being met. תוספות offers examples of צורך קיום מצוה ביו״ט –

כההיא דהוצאת³
Carrying on יו״ט in a רה״ר is forbidden מדאורייתא unless there is צורך היום where we utilize the היתר of מתוך.
קטן למולו⁴
The משנה there (merely) states that ב״ה is מתיר to carry out a קטן, לולב וס״ת (without any qualifications); however תוספות maintains that we may carry them לרה״ר only לצורך מצוה (even though this מצוה is not part of מצות יו״ט [like קטן למולו]). See later in תוס׳ (footnote # 17) that according to the ר״י one may be מוציא a קטן even לטייל.
וספר תורה לקרות בו ולולב לצאת בו (ביצה דף יב,א) –
Like those cases of taking out a קטן into a רה״ר in order to circumcise him, and taking out a ס״ת into a רה״ר to read it, or taking out a לולב to a רה״ר to fulfill the מצוה of נטילת ד׳ מינים, which the ב״ה permit –

אבל שלא לצורך היום כלל לא כמו הוצאת אבנים⁵
See the גמרא there (ביצה יב,א) that all agree that הוצאת אבנים is אסור.
דמיחייב –
However if there is no צורך היום at all, like taking out stones, it is not permitted, and he is חייב (מלקות) for doing a מלאכה ביו״ט.

תוספות offers another example of שלא לצורך היום כלל:
והאופה מיום טוב לחול לרב חסדא דאמר לוקה (שם דף כא,א) משום דלית ליה הואיל⁶
רבה, there, maintains that one who is אופה מיו״ט לחול (he is cooking after he finished his יו״ט meal and does not intend to eat any more on יו״ט) is פטור, for we say that since [הואיל] some guests may come to him on יו״ט and he can serve them the food he is baking לחול, and he will not be חייב, therefore even though no guests actually came, nevertheless he is פטור. This is the היתר of הואיל. However ר״ח does not subscribe to this היתר, therefore if one is אופה מיו״ט לחול there is no צורך היום כלל, and he is לוקה.
–
And similarly one who bakes on יו״ט for the weekday, according to ר״ח who maintains that he receives מלקות, since ר״ח does not agree to the היתר of הואיל, therefore baking מיו״ט לחול is שלא לצורך היום כלל, and therefore he is לוקה.

תוספות anticipates some difficulties with his ruling that there must be a צורך היום:
ושחיטת עולת נדבה⁷
An עולת נדבה is completely consumed on the מזבח, so there is no הנאה for the person, and this מצוה of bringing a קרבן נדבה, need not be done today; it can be done another time (as opposed to תינוק למול וכו׳). However ב״ה certainly allows to bring the עולת ראיה (the קרבן one is required to bring when he is עולה רגל to fulfill the מצוה of ולא יראה את פני ה׳ ריקם [see דברים (ראה) טז,טז]), without the היתר of מתוך, for this is לצורך קיום מצות היום, so there is no issue regarding עולת ראיה (according to ב״ה).
דשרי לבית הלל (שם דף כ,ב⁸
This is amended to read יב,א.
) –
And regarding the ruling of ב״ה who permit offering an עולת נדבה on יו״ט, where there is seemingly no צורך היום –

תוספות responds:
היינו משום שלא יהא שלחנך מלא ושלחן רבך חסר⁹
Therefore it is permitted even though we do not say מתוך in such a case (since it is שלא לצורך). Alternately, since it is inappropriate to have שולחנך מלא ושלחן רבך חסר, it becomes a צורך היום for שמחת יו״ט.
–
That (עולת נדבה) is permitted in order that it should not be a situation where your table is full (there is ample food for all), and your master’s table (the מזבח) is lacking (because there are no עולות נדבה) –
Another anticipated difficulty (in the opposite direction):¹⁰
תוספות is questioning his previously mentioned premise that we apply מתוך to צורך קיום מצוה ביו״ט (and not only to צורך הנאת היום).


ומוצא חמץ בתוך ביתו דאמרינן בפרק קמא דפסחים (דף ו,א ושם) דכופה עליו כלי –
And regarding one who finds חמץ in his house on פסח, where רב states in the first פרק of מסכת פסחים, that he covers it with a utensil so he should not eat it –

ולא שרינן לשורפו משום מתוך¹¹
One is obligated to destroy his חמץ (continually) whenever he finds it on פסח in his possession.
–
So why do we not permit him to burn the חמץ on account of מתוך; for there is a צורך קיום מצוה ביו״ט?

תוספות responds:
היינו משום דאסור לשורפו מדרבנן משום מוקצה דאסור לטלטלו¹²
See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1 & 2.
–
That is because it is forbidden מדרבנן to burn it, for it is מוקצה which is forbidden to be moved –

תוספות rejects an alternate solution to this question:
אבל אין לומר דאיירי כשביטלו –
However we cannot answer that the case of כופה עליו כלי is where he was מבטל the חמץ and therefore there is no צורך מן התורה to burn it, this is not so –

דמכל מקום מדרבנן מצוה לשורפו והוי צורך היום –
For nevertheless, even if he was מבטל the חמץ, there is a מצוה מדרבנן to burn it and this would be considered a צורך היום which would allow us to burn it on account of מתוך –

דבמצוה דרבנן נמי שרינן היכא דאיכא למימר מתוך¹³
See בארות המים who explains that ב״ה rules that one is permitted to carry out a לולב on שבת without any qualifications; meaning even if it is one of the later days of סוכות where the מצוה of נטילת לולב is only מדרבנן.
–
For by a מצוה דרבנן which we are obligated to do on יו״ט, we would also permit doing a מלאכה where we can apply the היתר of מתוך.

תוספות anticipates an additional difficulty:
והא דפליגי בית שמאי ובית הלל (ביצה דף יב,ב) במבשל גיד הנשה ביום טוב ואכלו –
And that which ב״ש and ב״ה argue regarding one who cooks a גיד הנשה on יו״ט and ate it, where –

דלבית שמאי דלית להו מתוך לוקה ולבית הלל דאית להו מתוך אינו לוקה¹⁴
If cooking this גיד הנשה is considered אוכל נפש, since he is eating it, there is no need for מתוך (and ב״ש should also be מתיר), if it is not considered אוכל נפש since it is אסור, so there is no צורך היום for it is a מאכל אסור.
–
According to ב״ש who do not agree with מתוך, he is לוקה and according to ב״ה who maintain מתוך, he is not לוקה; how can we apply מתוך here; since this is a forbidden food there is no צורך היום –

תוספות responds:
צריך לומר אף על גב דלא חשיב אוכל נפש¹⁵
That is why it is אסור to cook the גיד הנשה, if not for the היתר of מתוך.
משום איסור דרכיב עליה –
It will be necessary to answer, even though that on one hand it is not considered אוכל נפש because of the prohibition which is ‘riding’ on the גיד הנשה (which explains why he is לוקה according to ב״ש) –

מכל מקום צורך היום הוא כיון דאכיל ליה –
Nevertheless it is considered צורך היום since he is eating it (it satiates his hunger), so he is not לוקה [only] on account of מתוך according to the ב״ה.¹⁶
He had in mind to eat it when he cooked it. See תוס׳ ביצה יג,ב ד״ה הכא.


תוספות discusses various cases whether they are צורך היום or not:
ונראה לרבינו יצחק דהוצאת תינוק לטייל הוי צורך היום¹⁷
The ר״י maintains that the צורך היום which is required does not necessarily have to be לצורך שמחת יו״ט (as mentioned previously in תוספות that it needs to be לצורך הנאת היום [or לצורך מצוה]), but rather any צורך היום is sufficient (even if it is not לצורך שמחת יו״ט) as taking out a child לטייל. See footnote # 4.

And it is the view of the ר״י that carrying out a child to a רה״ר to play with him is a צורך היום –

ומיהו הוצאה לצורך נכרי נראה דאסור –
However it seems that carrying out something into a רה״ר for a gentile’s need is forbidden¹⁸
This (minimal) צורך היום which is sufficient is only if it is לצורך ישראל, but not לצורך גוי.
–

תוספות finds a discrepancy in this ruling:
ומה שנהגו עתה להוציא לצורך נכרי היה נראה לרבי שמשון בן אברהם –
And initially¹⁹
See later in this תוספות (by footnote # 34 [in the text]).
it was the view of the רשב״א that the reason for the custom nowadays to carry out something for a gentile is –

משום דרשות הרבים דידן לא הוי אלא כרמלית²⁰
A כרמלית is a רשות which does not qualify for either a רה״ר or a רה״י. According to תורה law one is permitted to carry in (and out of) a כרמלית. However, the חכמים were גוזר that one may not carry from either a רה״ר or רה״י into a כרמלית and vice versa, as well as not carrying ד׳ אמות in a כרמלית.
דאין רחבין ט״ז אמה²¹
We derive from the רה״ר in the מדבר in the times of the משכן that the width of the רה״ר is (at least) sixteen אמות.
–
Because our רה״ר is only a כרמלית since they are not wide sixteen אמות –

וגבי יום טוב לא גזור רבנן²²
The איסור of הוצאה on שבת (where there is an איסור סקילה) is more stringent than on יו״ט (where it is ‘only’ an איסור לאו), therefore the חכמים were גוזר by a כרמלית only on שבת, but not on יו״ט.
–
And on יו״ט the רבנן did not decree not to carry into a כרמלית (as they were גוזר for שבת) –

תוספות offers proof that we are more lenient by יו״ט than on שבת:
כי היכי דלא תקון רבנן עירובי חצירות²³
עירוב חצירות is the Rabbinic requirement to make an עירוב (placing food from all the members of the עירוב in one place) to allow carrying on שבת from private domains (an apartment, for instance) to a shared domain (the common hallways of the building) which are all רה״י. Otherwise, מדרבנן one may not carry from one רה״י to another רה״י (which belongs to a different party or parties).
ביום טוב²⁴
On יו״ט one may carry from one רשות to another [or common] רשות even if no עירובי חצירות was made.
–
Just as the רבנן did not institute עירובי חצירות on יו״ט, similarly they were not גוזר the איסור הוצאה by כרמלית on יו״ט –

תוספות offers a proof that the רבנן did not institute עירובי חצרות on יו״ט –

כדמשמע בריש פרק שני דביצה (דף טז,ב) דאמר יום טוב שחל להיות ערב שבת כולי²⁵
The ת״ק there maintains that in this situation we are not permitted to make either עירובי חצירות or עירובי תחומין on יו״ט (which is ערב שבת) for the sake of שבת, because we are preparing something on יו״ט, which is not for the sake of יו״ט (but rather for the שבת which follows it).
–
As it seems in the beginning of the second פרק of מסכת ביצה where the ברייתא states if a יו״ט occurred on ערב שבת, etc. –

רבי אומר מערבין עירובי חצירות אבל לא עירובי תחומין²⁶
עירובי תחומין allows the person to walk an additional תחום שבת (two thousand אמות), from the place where he placed the עירוב (which must be within a תחום שבת where he is currently residing).
–

רבי maintains one may make עירובי חצירות, but not עירובי תחומין –

לפי שאתה אוסרו בדבר האסור לו²⁷
It is forbidden to go outside the תחום (שבת) (even) on יו״ט, therefore one cannot make עירובי תחומין on יו״ט.
ואי אתה אוסרו בדבר המותר לו²⁸
This (seemingly [see later footnote # 40]) means that since on יו״ט one is permitted to carry from one חצר to another without עירובי חצירות, therefore one is permitted to make עירובי חצירות on יו״ט for שבת.
–
Because you may prohibit him in something which he is already prohibited, but you cannot prohibit him in something which he is already permitted²⁹
Since תחומין is אסור on יו״ט, therefore making an עירובי תחומין (even for שבת) is considered מתקן, preparing something (which is אסור); however since there is no need for עירובי חצירות on יו״ט, making an ע״ח on יו״ט (for שבת) is not considered as one is preparing something substantial, since it is permitted today even without ע״ח.
–

אלמא לא תקון עירובי חצירות ביום טוב והוא הדין דלא גזרו בכרמלית³⁰
See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3.
–
It is evident (from the statement ואי אתה אוסרו בדבר המותר לו) that the חכמים did not institute ערובי חצירות on יו״ט, and the same applies that they did not issue a decree against carrying in a כרמלית on יו״ט, therefore nowadays where there is no רה״ר דאורייתא only a כרמלית מדרבנן, it is permitted to carry into a כרמלית even לצורך נכרי only.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty with the aforementioned that there is no ע״ח on יו״ט:
והא דקיימא לן בפרק אמרו לו³¹
See רש״ש who deletes the words ׳בפרק אמרו לו׳ (for there the גמרא discusses יוה״כ, and [additionally] the גמרא there concludes אין עירוב והוצאה ליוה״כ).
(כריתות דף יד,א ושם) ובפרק קמא דביצה (דף יב,א ושם) –
And regarding this which we have established in פרק אמרו לו and in the first פרק of מסכת ביצה –

דיש עירוב והוצאה ליום טוב³²
There is an איסור הוצאה מרשות לרשות on יו״ט and (therefore there are) also the rules regarding making an ע״ח on יו״ט.
–
That there is עירוב והוצאה on יו״ט; presumably referring to ע״ח, which contradicts this which תוס׳ just assumed that there is no (need for) עירובי חצירות on יו״ט –

תוספות replies:
נראה דאיירי בעירובי תחומין³³
עירובי תחומין are more stringent than עירובי חצירות, since there is some support to ע״ח in the תורה. The פסוק (in שמות [בשלח] טז,כט) of אל יצא איש ממקומו is quoted as a source (or an אסמכתא) for the איסור תחומין.
–
It seems that the term עירוב there means עירובי תחומין but not עירובי חצירות.
In summation; the רשב״א maintains one is permitted to carry on יו״ט even לצורך נכרי, since today there is no רה״ר דאורייתא, only a כרמלית, and the רבנן were not גוזר איסור הוצאה by a כרמלית on יו״ט, just as they did not require ע״ח on יו״ט.
The רשב״א retracts his previous statement that we may carry for a נכרי:
ושוב חזר בו דמחצר שאינה מעורבת אין ללמוד ממנה לכרמלית דחמיר טפי –
And later the רשב״א retracted, for we cannot derive a leniency by a כרמלית from a חצר שאינה מעורבת, since the laws of כרמלית are stricter³⁴
The משנה in שבת קכ,א teaches that in the case of a fire one is permitted to carry objects from the fire to a חצר המעורבת. However בן בתירה permits to take it even into a חצר שאינה מעורבת. However even בן בתירה agrees that it may not be taken into a כרמלית; proving the איסור כרמלית is more stringent than עירובי חצירות.
than the laws of ע״ח –

כמו שפירשתי³⁵
Seeתוס׳ there ד״ה שלש.
במסכת שבת (דף קיז,א) –
As I explained in מס׳ שבת.

תוספות presents an additional difficulty on the רשב״א:
ועוד נראה דהא דקיימא לן דיש עירוב והוצאה ליום טוב בעירובי חצירות מיירי³⁶
Therefore there is no basis for the leniency of the רשב״א (even if the איסור כרמלית would not be more stringent than עירובי חצירות), for there is no leniency (even) regarding ע״ח on יו״ט.
–
And additionally it seems that this which we have established that there is עירוב והוצאה for יו״ט, it is referring to עירובי חצירות (and not to עירובי תחומין as the רשב״א claimed previously) –

תוספות proves his point that עירוב ליו״ט refers to עירובי חצירות:
מדבעי למימר בפרק אמרו לו (כריתות דף יד,א ושם) דאין עירוב והוצאה ליום הכפורים –
Since the גמרא wanted to derive in פרק אמרו לו, that there is no עירוב והוצאה on יו״כ (that one may carry on יו״כ מרשות לרשות) –

מדתנן התם אם היתה שבת והוציאו בפיו חייב³⁷
The משנה there states that it is possible to eat one אכילה on יו״כ and be liable to bring four קרבנות חטאת and one קרבן אשם. ר״מ adds that he can be liable for a fifth חטאת.
–
From the משנה which states there that ר״מ rules if יו״כ occurred on a שבת and he carried it out with his mouth, he is liable for an additional חטאת for transgressing the איסור הוצאה on שבת, but he will not be מחויב this extra חטאת if it is a regular יו״כ, which occurred on a weekday; indicating that there is no איסור הוצאה on יו״כ –

וכן בביצה (דף יב,א ושם) בעי למידק דאין עירוב והוצאה ליום טוב –
And similarly in מסכת ביצה where רבה wanted to infer that there is no עירוב והוצאה on יו״ט –

מדשרו בית הלל להוציא קטן ולולב³⁸
This is not a valid proof because ב״ה can maintain that it is permitted because of מתוך.
–
Since ב״ה permitted to carry out into a רה״ר a minor or a לולב. In both places the גמרא said אין עירוב והוצאה וכו׳ even though the discussion is (only) about הוצאה –

והיינו עירובי חצרות דהשתא מוכח לה שפיר מדשרו הוצאה –
So we must say that the עירוב there means עירובי חצירות, for then (if עירוב means ע״ח) it can be properly proven that there is no עירוב for either יו״כ or יו״ט, since הוצאה is permitted מרשות לרשות it follows that ע״ח are also not required –

דלא גזרו רבנן אעירובי חצירות אלא משום הוצאה³⁹
The חכמים were concerned if we would allow people to carry from their private residences (which is a רה״י) to a common area where many people have a right to be there (which makes it similar to a רה״ר [even though legally it is a רה״י), people may mistakenly assume that we may carry from a רה״י to a (real) רה״ר.
–
For the רבנן did not decree the need for ע״ח only because they were concerned about הוצאה. It therefore follows if there is no איסור הוצאה (on יו״כ or יו״ט) there is no need for ע״ח. Therefore the גמרא says אין עירוב (חצירות) והוצאה וכו׳ –

אבל עירובי תחומין אין עניינה להוצאה –
However the requirement for ע״ת has no connection to הוצאה. So when the גמרא lumps together עירוב והוצאה it must be referring to ע״ח.

תוספות responds to the anticipated difficulty:⁴⁰
If on יו״ט we are also prohibited from carrying מרשות לרשות without an עירוב, what did רבי mean when he said one is permitted to make an ע״ח on יו״ט, since אי אתה אוסרו בדבר המותר לו (see footnote # 28), since on יו״ט there is also the requirement for ע״ח.


והא דקאמר ואי אתה אוסרו בדבר המותר לו היינו משום דמותר להוציא⁴¹
See ‘Thinking it over’# 4.
לצורך:
And that which the גמרא said (regarding the ruling of רבי that מערבין ע״ח ואין מערבין ע״ת) ‘but you cannot prohibit him in something in which he is permitted’, that is because he is permitted to carry out into the רה״ר for a יו״ט need, because of מתוך, but not that there is no דין of ע״ח on יו״ט (where there is no צורך at all).

SUMMARY
The היתר of מתוך is only if it is לצורך (הנאת) היום (even if it is not לצורך שמחת היום according to the ר״י) or לצורך קיום מצוה ביו״ט. The laws of ע״ח apply to יו״ט as well and we are not permitted to carry לצורך נכרי.

THINKING IT OVER
1. תוספות writes that we cannot burn חמץ on יו״ט since it is מוקצה.⁴²
See footnote # 12.
However one is permitted to move מוקצה לצורך אוכל נפש, so why do we not say regarding the איסור מוקצה (which is only a דרבנן) that מתוך שהותרה לצורך אוכל נפש הותרה נמי לצורך מצוה (as we say regarding איסור דאורייתא)?!⁴³
See סוכ״ד אות ל׳.

2. May one burn חמץ on יו״ט if he does not move it,⁴⁴
See footnote # 12.
so there is no איסור of טלטול מוקצה?⁴⁵
See שו״ע או״ח סי׳ תמו ס״א ברמ״א ובמג״א ס״ק ג׳ and in שו״ע אדמה״ז שם סעיף ה׳ ובקו״א שם ס״ק ב.

3. According to תוספות initial view that there is no גזירת כרמלית on יו״ט,⁴⁶
See footnote # 30.
is one permitted to carry into a כרמלית on יו״ט even if it is שלא לצורך כלל?
4. תוספות concludes that the meaning of ואי אתה אוסרו בדבר המותר לו means that it is מותר (without עירובי חצירות) if it is לצורך, for then we say מתוך.⁴⁷
See footnote # 41.
Seemingly we should also say מתוך regarding עירובי תחומין (for what is the difference); so why does רבי say regarding ע״ת that אתה אוסרו בדבר האסור לו, since by ע״ת we should also say מתוך as we say by ע״ח?!⁴⁸
See מהרש״א הארוך and פנ״י.

All [activities] that are forbidden on the Sabbath, whether because they resemble a [forbidden] labor, might lead to a forbidden labor, or are placed in the category of sh'vut,⁴³See Hilchot Shabbat, Chapters 21-23, which list activities forbidden by the Sages for every category of forbidden labor. are forbidden on a holiday unless they are necessary for the preparation of food and the like, or for other purposes that are permitted on a holiday, as will be explained in these laws.
Everything that is forbidden to be carried on the Sabbath,⁴⁴See Hilchot Shabbat, Chapters 25 and 26. is forbidden to be carried on a holiday, except for the purpose [of the preparation] of food and the like. Whatever [activities] may be carried out on the Sabbath may be carried on the holidays. There is, however, [a category of prohibitions] that apply on the holidays, but do not apply on the Sabbath: the prohibitions against muktzeh.⁴⁵The term muktzeh as popularly used with regard to the Sabbath prohibitions is not a precise application of the term. Muktzeh literally means "set aside." As used in the context here, it applies to articles that a person did not intend to use on a holiday. Rather, he "set them aside" to be used in the future.
As the Rambam explains in the following halachah, on the Sabbath it is not necessary to have a specific intention to use an object on the Sabbath. As long as there is no reason that prevents one from using it on that day - e.g., the prohibitions mentioned in Hilchot Shabbat, Chapters 25 and 26 - one may carry it on the Sabbath.
Muktzeh is forbidden on a holiday, but permitted on the Sabbath. [The rationale is] since the [restrictions pertaining to] the holidays are more lenient than those of the Sabbath, [our Sages] forbade muktzeh, lest one come to treat the holidays with disrespect.⁴⁶The Ra'avad differs and states that there are authorities who maintain that articles that are muktzeh are permitted to be carried on holidays. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 495:4), while the Tur and the Ramah cite the more lenient view. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 495:13 states that although it is customary to follow the more lenient view, it would be preferable to follow the more stringent ruling.