5. In Letter 306( Blau) the Rambam clarifies his opinion in this subject. He writes that we are not to understand the clauses""" as Prohibitions that are done in the manner as done on a weekday, if this were so, he points out, it would be forbidden for us to eat, sit at the table etc. in a weekday manner. He therefore explains Abbaye's teaching as requiring additional explanation( as he does in his work in regard to the Sabbath laws) and his intent is that the Prohibition of performing the act in a weekday fashion is to avoid becoming used to doing the Melacha, that the Prohibition is not because it is" secular" but is prohibited because of the" xnV NIMA”.

C. However this presents a problem: in the laws of Yom- tov- in contrast to the

." גזרה שמא" the" כדשע"ב" laws of the Sabbath- the Rambam does not add to the phrase

We would think that only with the laws of Yom- tov is it the Rambam's opinion that there is a category of" secular manner" Prohibitions. But we would also point out that in regard for the laws of Yom- tov too he uses the clause""" not as a reason for the Prohibition but as a characteristic description only. His point here is that these acts are to be performed with a" Shinnuy"( as was previously clarified at the beginning of his work on the laws of Yom- tov 1,5: because of the" Simchat Yom- tov" ruling, so that he should do these things before the holiday). As a proof of this:

1. Specifically, in the one source in the Talmud where the reason" Ovadin De'chol" is explained( weighing and measuring with an instrument on Yom- tov) the Rambam does not formulate it with the clause" 1""( in the laws of Sabbath he

.(!" גזירות שמא" adds this Prohibition to the

2. In the majority of the occurrences( 8 out of 10) of the clause" 1" y" regarding the laws of Yom- tov, our sources( Tannaitic or Amoraic) there is not any mention of the clause" i" y" or indication of the category of" Ovadin De'chol". Why would the Rambam think that only these 8 instances belong to the category of" Ovadin De'chol".

- vii-