Commentary for Yevamot 67:4

ר' מאיר אומר אם היתה שבת והוציאו בפיו חייב אמרו לו אינו מן השם

the Sabbath and [the consumer] carried out [the suet] in his mouth, liability is incurred [for this act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Carrying on the Sabbath. ');">¹⁰</span> also].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is shewn that R. Meir recognizes the validity of the three kinds of prohibition: When the animal was consecrated, the prohibition of having any benefit from any part of it has been added to that of eating its suet (wider range). and when a piece of the suet became nothar (since it is thereby forbidden to be offered up on the altar, which is an added restriction) the prohibition of nothar has also been imposed in respect of its consumption by the priests (again wider range). When the priest becomes unclean and is consequently forbidden to consume any holy meat he is also forbidden to consume the nothar (comprehensive), and with the advent of the Day of Atonement the prohibition of the consumption of food generally on that day falls also on the nothar (again comprehensive). Finally, at the moment Sabbath sets in two more prohibitions are imposed (simultaneous) that of carrying on the Sabbath and that of eating on the Day of Atonement (Rashi) or those of carrying on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement (Tosaf., s.v. [H]). ');">¹¹</span> They said to him: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Carrying on the Sabbath. ');">¹⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 67:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.