meaning of the phrases according to our second or third proposal which indicates that what was prohibited was performing it only in a" weekday" manner, a point that is so cogent to understanding the halacha and would therefore not be removed by the editor of the Mishna.

C. We have identified three different syntax forms of the phrase" y" as they appear in a sentence:

1." DTN MØY) N( a person is prohibited from doing an act) 1 ″ VUTI”.

2."(= a person is permitted to perform an act)"-" VUTI NUV' NSW TI531"

3.(= a person should not perform an act) in nowy w xbw". Our investigation shows that this third syntax form only appears in the Babylonian Talmud Baraitot, this is cause for speculation, as in the Babylonian Talmud there is no doubt as to how the""" sentences were interpreted as the relationship word v( should not...) turns the entire phrase into a definite" reason" phrase. Based on this it is not difficult for us to understand why the later commentators took for granted that in the Tannaitic sentences" 1" y" contain a category relationship.

D. In the Jerusalem Talmud( albeit not in the Baraitot as in Babylonian Talmud,

with the Syntax of" כדשע"ב" we encounter clauses of the type" סתמא דגמרא" only in the

proposal 2. The interpretation for some of the sources is as proposal 3, but we are unable to date the appearance of phrases in the subject matter of the Jerusalem Talmud.

E. Amongst the Babylonian Amoraim there were those(= Abbaye) who saw these clauses as explanatory, whose structure became fixed and known. Opposed to them were other Amoraim(= Rav Acha Bar Yaacov) who did not see in these clauses any indication for the reason of the Prohibition, and were bidden to look for the reason of the halacha in the" Now", that were derived from one of the" Melachoth"( work).

- iii-