Rambam's commentary as supporting Rashi's interpretation. As a consequence, in those instances where the Rambam quotes the sources in conjunction with the clause """ his commentators take him to mean that they belong to the category of " Ovadin De'chol" Prohibitions. If that were not sufficient, those statements in our sources that do not have any connection with" Ovadin De'chol" were interpreted by them as though he had formulated them with the clauses in question, and were explained as belonging to the" Ovadin De'chol" Prohibition category.

It is our opinion, that the above does not conform with the Rambam's methodology because:

1. In every instance in his explanation of the laws of Sabbath he quotes our sources that include the clause""" he takes the trouble to provide a new justification along the lines of" xpw man" rulings of one of the Melachot. If our sources already provide the justification of" weekday manner" for the Prohibition why is it necessary to use the new justification?

2. The Rambam does not provide a special place for these Prohibitions, but lists them with the other Prohibitions of" Shevut" in chapters 21-24 of the laws of Sabbath.

3. The language he employs when using the clause" 1" y" proves that he saw in them characteristic clause that comes to indicate that the Melachot to which they relate must be done with a" Shinnuy" to be permitted. Accordingly, it would seem that the Rambam understood the clause""" in the Tosefta according to the second interpretation shown above. But see what we have written on pages 92-93.

4. In one instance we even found that the Talmud provides an explanation for a Prohibition which leaves no doubt as to its meaning"" and the Rambam quotes it with the clause" 1" DUTI".

- vi-