Prohibitions? It is therefore, more logical to conclude that the clauses" 1" у” in his writings are not a full reason( see above) or a categorical indication( we have divided his use of this clause into four ways- see pages 92-93).

D. The methods used by Rashi and Rambam represent in our opinion opposing viewpoints in the interpretation of the clause" 1"". We are able to explain their opposing views only when we come across the possible explanations inherent in the early Tannaitic texts. However we must ask ourselves: Is it possible to find earlier sources for the views expressed by Rashi and the Rambam?

1. We can show that from a study of the sources of the Rambam's explanation of the Mishna it would seem that in his youth the Rambam had the same viewpoint as Rashi, that there is a group of" secular manner" Prohibitions, and at a later date changed his opinion.

2. It seems that" Ritz Giat" of Spain, who did not know of Rashi's work was also of this opinion, a halachic ruling cited by him in the name of Rav Hai Gaon, indicates that the expression" Ovadin De'chol" is a special category of Prohibition.

3. This also can be proved from a responsum of Sar Shalom Gaon and an unidentified Gaonic responsum.

4. We have shown that indications of the Rambam's method also exist in R. Hananael's commentary on the Babylonian Talmud.

E. An examination of the laws of the Sabbath shows a general trend in the work of Sages during the Tannaitic period to contract and place the majority of the Sabbath Prohibitions under the tree of the 39 major Melachot and their derivatives. Y.D. Gilat showed this in his the Tannaitic Period, and A. Goldberg in his work on the

- viii-