abba

“If he does not have a wound on his foot.” Therefore if he has a wound on his foot he may wear one. On which foot does he wear it? Samuel said, he wears it on the one which has no wound. If you would say that he wears it on the one which has the wound, how does he tie it that he could not put it on the other? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he wears it on the one which has the wound. Simeon bar Abba served Rebbi Joḥanan; he brought him his sandals as it was stated in Derekh Ereṣ: When he puts them on, he puts the right foot one on first and after this the left foot one, when he removes them he removes the left foot one and after this the right foot one. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, Babylonian, you should not act in this way for the earlier generations did not do this. But when he puts them on, he puts the left foot one on first and after this the right foot one, that the right side one should not look deficient. This implies that he wears it on the one which has the wound. He told him, yes, Babylonian, you got it.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Rav Naḥman, it is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s, as we have stated there: “A metal ring with a coral seal is impure; a coral ring with a metal seal is pure.” It was stated about this: “Rebbi Neḥemiah switches. And so did Rebbi Neḥemiah say, for a ring after its seal, for a ladder after its steps, for a קוֹלָב after what fixes it, for a (lock) [yoke] after its strips.” Rebbi Ila said, explain it according to everybody if she took it out in order to seal with it. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: if it was made for dual purpose, if she brought it out in order to seal one is liable, if she brought it out as jewelry one is not liable even for the seal for also the seal becomes an accessory of jewelry.

HALAKHAH: Ḥanan bar Immi said before (Rebbi) [Rav] Jehudah [in the name of] Menashia bar (Menashe) Jeremiah: But only that a young girl should not go out with an old woman’s nor an old woman with a young girl’s. But did we not state: “Girls go out with threads”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, even wound around her neck. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, there even if she cannot bring (her nose) [a thread similar] to her hair she may leave with it. But here, a young girl should not go out with an old woman’s nor an old woman with a young girl’s.

Rebbi Abbahu said, anything which sits in the hair is called “wig.” The younger Rebbi Yannai had cotton wool in his ear which fell out. He wanted to return it on the Sabbath. His companions rebuked him; was it because of jewelry? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that oil is the healing agent, whereas the Sages were of the opinion that the cotton wool was the healing agent? But did not (Rav) [Rebbi] Jehudah say in the name of Rav Zeˋira, a person with earache puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that practice follows Rebbi Yose whereas his companions were of the opinion that practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? Buy did not Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that they did not consider humans like soil whereas his companions were of the opinion that they made humans like soil? But did not Rebbi Zeˋira say that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi made himself a handle for the cotton wool in his ear? Could they hold that a human is treated like soil? Is this so? But it must be the following: Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he would not forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain and his companions were of the opinion that one would forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

HALAKHAH: “One goes out with a tetradrachma on a ṣinnit;” ποδάγρα, gout. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, even a metal plate.

But did we not state, “girls go out with threads”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, even wound around her neck. Abba bar Abba commanded to his son Samuel, do not accept this Mishnah, but “not with chips in their ears.” So is the Mishnah: “Arab women go out veiled; Median women pinned.”

But did we not state, “girls go out with threads”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, even wound around her neck. Abba bar Abba commanded to his son Samuel, do not accept this Mishnah, but “not with chips in their ears.” So is the Mishnah: “Arab women go out veiled; Median women pinned.”

But did we not state, “girls go out with threads”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, even wound around her neck. Abba bar Abba commanded to his son Samuel, do not accept this Mishnah, but “not with chips in their ears.” So is the Mishnah: “Arab women go out veiled; Median women pinned.”

Rebbi Levi said, in the end it will come over anybody engaged in divination. What is the reason? For there is no divination in Jacob; for divination is his. Rebbi Aḥa bar Zeˋira said, the place of anybody not divining will be like that of the Angels of Service. What is the reason? At that time it will be said to Israel what God wrought. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, this evildoer lived halfway through the existence of the world. What is the reason? At that time it will be said to Israel what God wrought. Rebbi Jeremiah ben Eleazar said, in the future a disembodied voice will explode in the tents of the Just and say, everybody who worked with God should come and take his reward. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: In the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will make place for the Just inside the place of the Angels of Service; the Angels of Service will ask them and say to them, what did God do? What did the Holy One, praise to Him, teach you? Rebbi Levi bar Ḥayta said, did He not already do this in this world? That is what is written, Nebuchadnezzar started and said, but I am seeing four free men walking in the fire and no blemish is on them. Why does the verse say, and no blemish is on them? This teaches that they were eunuchs but were healed. It is not written “and the looks of the first”, but and the looks of the fourth; they were suppressing the fire before him. Is similar to a son of gods. [Rebbi] Reuben said, at that moment an angel descended, hit that evildoer on his mouth, and told him, correct your words; does He have a son? He continued and said, praised be the God of Shadrak, Meshak, and Abed-Nego; it does not say “Who sent His son” but Who sent His angel and rescued His servants who trusted in Him.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that he did not concede to him. (It was) [Now] Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to] him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated, “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that he did not concede to him. (It was) [Now] Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to] him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated, “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him.

Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Therefore about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Rebbi Eliezer that he is liable for every single one. Then Rebbi Eliezer should have objected to him, is there not error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the works where there are not many ramifications and many purification sacrifices and you are agreeing with me that he is liable for every single one. Since he did not object in this way it implies that one case is like the other case.

Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Do you not catch him because of the error regarding the Sabbath? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: He asked him two questions. About intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work that he be liable for every single one. In case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding works does one treat the derivatives like that main item? Rebbi Jacob ben Dasai said, and in the House of Rebbi it was stated so: “If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or once for each single one?” Many works of the same category, this describes intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. Many Sabbaths all of the same category, this describes error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work.

Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Do you not catch him because of the error regarding the Sabbath? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: He asked him two questions. About intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work that he be liable for every single one. In case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding works does one treat the derivatives like that main item? Rebbi Jacob ben Dasai said, and in the House of Rebbi it was stated so: “If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or once for each single one?” Many works of the same category, this describes intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. Many Sabbaths all of the same category, this describes error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work.

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work, principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places, a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. Also here: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself, a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not] infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near, equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal, a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune, detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard, not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if one crushed an onion, if it was to give taste it is forbidden, if to reduce its sharpness it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: One may hide a radish in salt on condition not to leave it there. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: [If there came] his clothes from the tailor he may wear them; if they tore they tore. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: If his garments were entangled with thorns he straightens them out in a guarded place on condition that he not tear. Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Huna: If (he took) mortar [fell] on his garments he may rub it off with one hand, on condition that he not grind down. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: mint, one is permitted, three is forbidden, two is questionable. One who bathes, Rav Huna and Rav Jehudah. One said, so it is permitted and so it is forbidden. But the other one said, so and so it is forbidden. Rebbi Abba bar Zamina went bathing with Rebbi Zeˋira; he did not let him do either one or the other.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if one crushed an onion, if it was to give taste it is forbidden, if to reduce its sharpness it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: One may hide a radish in salt on condition not to leave it there. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: [If there came] his clothes from the tailor he may wear them; if they tore they tore. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: If his garments were entangled with thorns he straightens them out in a guarded place on condition that he not tear. Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Huna: If (he took) mortar [fell] on his garments he may rub it off with one hand, on condition that he not grind down. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: mint, one is permitted, three is forbidden, two is questionable. One who bathes, Rav Huna and Rav Jehudah. One said, so it is permitted and so it is forbidden. But the other one said, so and so it is forbidden. Rebbi Abba bar Zamina went bathing with Rebbi Zeˋira; he did not let him do either one or the other.

Rebbi Abba (bar) Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi disagreed. One said, one spits and crushes; the other said, one does not spit and crush. Where do they differ? If it is not on a mosaic floor. But if there is a mosaic floor he spits and crushes. If he spat and the wind carried it away he is liable because of winnowing; and for anything which is diminished by the wind one is liable because of winnowing.

Rebbi Abba (bar) Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi disagreed. One said, one spits and crushes; the other said, one does not spit and crush. Where do they differ? If it is not on a mosaic floor. But if there is a mosaic floor he spits and crushes. If he spat and the wind carried it away he is liable because of winnowing; and for anything which is diminished by the wind one is liable because of winnowing.

“And who grinds.” He who pulverizes salt, clay shards, peppers, is liable because of grinding. He who cuts into little pieces chalk, gypsum, chaff, sand, dirt, is liable because of sifting. He who kneads chalk, gypsum, dust, eye-salve, plaster, drugs, is liable because of making dough. One who makes dough, or kneads dough, or forms dough, all are because of making dough. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, there you say, “and he is liable for making its dough, and for its forming, and for its baking,” and here you are saying so? But there he has to divide for he is liable for each single one, but here he is liable only once. You see that baking is a derivative of cooking, and you are saying so? But it was stated here since we are stating the order of the dough.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, not until it comes down an entire side. Rebbi Yannai said, say to Rebbi Ḥanina, get out and read! Did we not state, “if the two ends appear on the same side”? That means, only if it goes up and down and up. And did we not state, “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three needle stitches”? That means that [the thread] goes down, and up, and down. But so and so. A thread drawn through by means of a needle, even if it has a knot on each side, is no connection for cloth. The thread is a connection for cloth but not for the needle. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, only if it is knotted on both sides. The words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

“And all other fluids by a quartarius, and all waste water by a quartarius.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The Mishnah speaks of one who moves from house to house.

“A pebble to throw at a bird.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That he throw it after a bird and it would notice it. And similarly, that he throw it after an animal and it would notice it.

What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? You should treat it as an abomination, like a menstruating woman. What is the rabbis’ reason? You should detest it, like vermin. How do the rabbis uphold Rebbi Aqiba’s reason, you should treat it as abomination? Treat it as excrement, make it vile. How does Rebbi Aqiba uphold the rabbis’ reason, you should treat it as abomination? Call it feces, treat it as excrement, make it vile. From where “make it vile” for the rabbis? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: you shall call it excrement; treat it as excrement, make it vile What is called King’s Face is called Dog’s Face. Spring of the Cup Spring of the Thorn. The Place of Fortune Place of Undress. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: The Ai which is near Bet-Awen East of Bethel. Earlier it was called Bethel but now one calls it Bet-Awen. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If one does not want to call it ‘Omda one calls it ‘Amida since Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, there one calls a good deed ˋomda but the flow of urine ‘amida. How does Rebbi Aqiba interpret you shall call it excrement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin, Rav Huna in the name of Rav Joseph: from here that one does not tell anybody to leave unless he entered with his head and most of his body.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

It was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment. On the day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment. But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate, to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions? From where that there is a clear commandment? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai: I did not give from it to the dead. Where do we hold? If not to bring a casket or shrouds for him, this is forbidden for the living, therefore certainly for the dead. What is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? I am saying that this is anointing.

Is there no difference, whether according to his opinion or that of the rabbis, only if it came to rest from a public domain into a private domain? In Rebbi’s opinion, even if it did not come to rest; in the rabbis’ opinion, only if it came to rest. For Rebbi Abba bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Rebbi declared liable only for a private domain which was roofed. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies, even if it was not roofed, for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Ila said, about the Sabbath it is written: You shall not do any work; it may make itself automatically. But here he shall deliver into her hand, into her domain.

HALAKHAH: 5. Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, it they are tied together with bast. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only if they made an eruv. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. One said, if the distance between them is less than four; but the other said, even if the distance between them is four. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even if they are not ten [hand-breadths] high, it is he who said, if the distance between them is less than four [hand-breadths].

HALAKHAH: 4. If one wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, with drinks or fruit juice on a board, he is not liable unless he wrote with permanent material on permanent material. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. But did we not state, “if they cannot be read together, he is not liable”? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, בסררה.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

HALAKHAH: 2. “The cross pieces,” the cross pieces. “The thrums,” καίρωμα. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?

One may make honeywine on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: wine, honey, and pepper. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to mix but forbidden to grind. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Anything for mixing is permitted, for grinding is forbidden. But do we not deal here with mixing? Rebbi Jehudah ben Titus, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is a difference here since it is completion of production. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to break but forbidden to assemble. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: ground garlic. If it needed grinding it is forbidden, but if to mix into fat it is permitted. There, we have stated: “About garlic, unripe grapes, and grain kernels which he squashed when it was still daylight, Rebbi Ismael used to say, he should finish after nightfall, Rebbi Aqiba said, he may not finish.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they disagreed only about profane food. “The Cohanim for heave used to follow Rebbi Ismael.”

One may make honeywine on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: wine, honey, and pepper. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to mix but forbidden to grind. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Anything for mixing is permitted, for grinding is forbidden. But do we not deal here with mixing? Rebbi Jehudah ben Titus, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is a difference here since it is completion of production. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to break but forbidden to assemble. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: ground garlic. If it needed grinding it is forbidden, but if to mix into fat it is permitted. There, we have stated: “About garlic, unripe grapes, and grain kernels which he squashed when it was still daylight, Rebbi Ismael used to say, he should finish after nightfall, Rebbi Aqiba said, he may not finish.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they disagreed only about profane food. “The Cohanim for heave used to follow Rebbi Ismael.”

Rebbi Abba asked Rebbi Jeremiah, how should we state, deqārin, deqālin? He said, deqārin, because it pierces the gall bladder. Rebbi Jonah said, it is more reasonable deqālin, because it gushes forth between two palm trees.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One who whispers puts oil on his head and whispers, on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, he may use both hand or vessel. What is the difference between them? Disgust. For him who says, he may use either hand or vessel, it is disgusting. For him who says, he puts oil on his head, it is not disgusting. Rebbi Jonah said, Second Tithe is the difference between them. For him who says, he may use either hand or vessel, Second Tithe is forbidden. For him who says, he puts oil on his head and whispers, Second Tithe is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, is everything permitted on the Sabbath permitted with Second Tithe and everything forbidden on the Sabbath forbidden with Second Tithe? But was it not stated: “A woman may douse herself and her son with wine because of sweat;” “ this is forbidden for heave.” There is no difference between heave and Second Tithe. What about it? On condition that he not proceed on the Sabbath the way he proceeds on a weekday.

HALAKHAH: 4. It is written, like vinegar for the teeth or like smoke for the eyes, and you are saying so? Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said, the Mishnah is about fruit vinegar. Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, even if you are saying as our Mishnah, it is good for a bad situation and bad for a good one.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon, since otherwise, could anybody give rose oil to a poor person if he could not anoint himself?

Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Yose, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Do they disagree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? Since it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meїr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.” This implies that they do not disagree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rebbi Abba said, the Mishnah is about a rope hanging down, a rope tied hanging down.

HALAKHAH: 3. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, folding by two persons is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On the Sabbath, two together may not fold. If one folds on a footstool it is as if two persons were folding. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for eating and drinking. Since this mouth [is bothersome] (is smelling), they permitted him to be occupied with words of the Torah. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for being occupied with words of the Torah. A baraita supports either one of them: What does one do? Either he sits down and eats or he sits and studies words of the Torah. One verse says, it is a Sabbath for the Eternal, and another verse says, an assembly for the Eternal, your God. How is that? Give part of it to the study of Torah and part to eat and to drink. Rebbi Abbahu said, a Sabbath for the Eternal, rest like the Eternal. Since the Eternal rested from saying, you also should rest from saying.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, with difficulty they permitted greeting on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, when Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai saw that his mother enjoyed talking much, he said to her, mama, today is Sabbath. It was stated: It is forbidden to pray for his needs on the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, may one say, “shepherd us, provide for us”? He answered him, these are formulas of benediction.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, with difficulty they permitted greeting on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, when Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai saw that his mother enjoyed talking much, he said to her, mama, today is Sabbath. It was stated: It is forbidden to pray for his needs on the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, may one say, “shepherd us, provide for us”? He answered him, these are formulas of benediction.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saw a book of agadah. He said, even if what is written in there is good, the hand who wrote it should be amputated. A person told him, it was written by X’s father. He said, I was saying, the hand who wrote it should be amputated. That happened to him, as an error which is coming out from the ruler’s mouth.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this is Rebbi Nehemiah’s who said, it can be taken only if necessary. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of the rabbis there is that everything in the house is prepared, but here if you would say so he would save from today for tomorrow. The Mishnah is from Rebbi הונדקס who said, one always saves food for three meals. Explain it if the fire started Friday evening before he ate. What should one say on the day of Atonement? Should he not save anything following the rabbis? Everybody agrees that one saves food for one meal because of the danger.

“If they are intelligent they settle accounts with him after the Sabbath..” There we have stated, “he leaves his toga with him and settles his account after the Sabbath.” There you say, he has his pledge with him; here what do you have? Rebbi Abba Mari said, because of this we taught, “if they were intelligent”.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Before they are on fire. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal in the name of Rav: If a scroll started burning at one side one puts water on the other side; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If the fire burned on both sides one spreads it out and reads in it; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If a toga started burning at one side one puts water on the other side; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If the fire burned on both sides one takes it and wraps oneself in it; if it was extinguished it was extinguished.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rebbi Mana said, in the days of Rebbi Yose children were carrying Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rebbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? Lest you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, lest you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical [beams]. Rebbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical [beams]; but the vertical [beams] at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rebbi Yose said: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rebbi Mana said, in the days of Rebbi Yose children were carrying Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rebbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? Lest you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, lest you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical [beams]. Rebbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical [beams]; but the vertical [beams] at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rebbi Yose said: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rebbi Mana said, in the days of Rebbi Yose children were carrying Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rebbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? Lest you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, lest you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical [beams]. Rebbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical [beams]; but the vertical [beams] at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rebbi Yose said: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

Rebbi Abba (Rebbi Judah, Rebbi) Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Neḥemiah about the press, the plank, and the mace; the press with which he presses, the plank on which one beats them, the mace with which he smashes them. An implement dedicated to a forbidden use may be moved only for a need; one for permitted use both with and without a need.

“A spade or a pitchfork to feed a child, a spindle or a spinning top to stick into something.” Rebbi Simon said, Rebbi Abbahu permitted me to apply eye salve on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet: The Mishnah implies this, “a sewing needle to remove a thorn,” since what would be the difference between this and a thorn? Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Mana, may one compound it on a holiday? He told him, it is not food.

“A spade or a pitchfork to feed a child, a spindle or a spinning top to stick into something.” Rebbi Simon said, Rebbi Abbahu permitted me to apply eye salve on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet: The Mishnah implies this, “a sewing needle to remove a thorn,” since what would be the difference between this and a thorn? Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Mana, may one compound it on a holiday? He told him, it is not food.

“All implement covers,” etc. Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: He explained this about one who forgot. A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. Since there, where he qualifies it as an implement, you say that it is permitted, here, where he does not qualify it as an implement, not so much more? Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Also they permitted preparations for making food. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: Following him who permits, only from above. As the following: In the days of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi there was a festive meal in the House of Study. They spread a canopy the day before over four cubits; the next day they were extending it over everything. They were of the opinion that this followed the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi. They investigated and found that it was not according to Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s opinion unless it was spread over most of it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who sets up tents on the Sabbath is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he only is spreading and folding it on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the rule for a spread over a chest? He told him, since it was spread the day before he is like one who unlocks and locks on the Sabbath.

The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. Since there, where he qualifies it as an implement, you say that it is permitted, here, where he does not qualify it as an implement, not so much more? Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Also they permitted preparations for making food. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: Following him who permits, only from above. As the following: In the days of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi there was a festive meal in the House of Study. They spread a canopy the day before over four cubits; the next day they were extending it over everything. They were of the opinion that this followed the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi. They investigated and found that it was not according to Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s opinion unless it was spread over most of it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who sets up tents on the Sabbath is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he only is spreading and folding it on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the rule for a spread over a chest? He told him, since it was spread the day before he is like one who unlocks and locks on the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: “One may add water to the yeast,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only he should not make it like a bosom. There is a question about the following: May one turn it over that the bosom is made by itself? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one may turn it on its side on condition not to do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.

Rav Huna said, one is permitted to drink asa foetida water on the Sabbath. Samuel said, asa foetida in itself is healthy persons’ food. Rav Huna said, he who eats the weight of a zuz from it is in danger and his skin is loosened. Rebbi Abba ate the weight of a zuz from it and jumped in the river.

MISHNAH: A person may not hire workers on the Sabbath and not say to another to hire workers for him. One does not wait for nightfall at the Sabbath boundary to hire workers and to bring produce, but one may wait for nightfall to watch and to bring produce in his hand. Abba Shaul formulated a principle: For anything which I am permitted to talk about I am permitted to wait for nightfall.

MISHNAH: One dissolves vows on the Sabbath and one may ask about vows if it is a need for the Sabbath. One plugs the skylight and measures a rag and a miqweh. It happened in the days of Rebbi Ṣadoq’s father and in the days of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, that they plugged the skylight with a jar and tied a dish to bast to know whether a barrel had a hand-breadth width opening or not. From their words we infer that one plugs, and measures, and ties on the Sabbath.

If it was wide within fifteen cubits, Rebbi Abba and Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He makes a plank of slightly more than three hand-breadths and removes it two cubits from the wall. The slight addition is treated as lath, and it is permitted on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space. Should he not make a plank four hand-breadths wide? Did we not state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide? Rebbi Abba bar Pappai said, in order to permit both parts without beam. Some Tannaim state, he puts up a stick and a double-pointed stake; some Tannaim state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Yose said, practice follows him who said, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide.

If it was wide within fifteen cubits, Rebbi Abba and Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He makes a plank of slightly more than three hand-breadths and removes it two cubits from the wall. The slight addition is treated as lath, and it is permitted on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space. Should he not make a plank four hand-breadths wide? Did we not state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide? Rebbi Abba bar Pappai said, in order to permit both parts without beam. Some Tannaim state, he puts up a stick and a double-pointed stake; some Tannaim state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Yose said, practice follows him who said, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if an alley has two entrances, he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Levi: Practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Abba said, only if he put up a stick and a doubly pointed stake; but if he made a plank four hand-breadths wide, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated thus: If an alley has four entrances, he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rebbi Yose said, only if he does it for a middle one. But if he put it on an outer one could it be that what is standing here would permit what is open there? What would permit that which is open there? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it that it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and you cannot infer anything.

Abba bar Huna said, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yannai the son of Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door.

Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, the House of Shammai say, a door on each side. When he enters he closes and locks. But the House of Hillel say, a door on one side and a door frame on the other side. Samuel said, practice follows Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother. Is that not the same as the earlier statement? Rebbi Abba said, if there is a door it can be locked. Rebbi Aḥa instructed one who made a door frame that he had to make it inside of four cubits. Rebbi Aybun instructed in this sense.

HALAKHAH: “The beam about which they spoke,” etc. Rebbi Abba said, to accommodate a row of tiles lengthwise. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to accommodate a row of tiles crosswise. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Ashian said, strength is between them. In the opinion of the rabbis, forty tiles. In the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, twenty tiles.

Building stones which protrude from the building, if between one and the other is less than three hand-breadths they are considered as laths. Corners sticking out at each side are considered as laths. A wall which is indented and looks like a plank from inside but even on the outside or looks like a plank from outside but even on the inside is considered as laths. If it was prolonged, Abba bar Rav Huna said, one looks at it as if indented. Rav Ḥisdai objected, did we not state, “if a large courtyard collapsed into a small one, the large one is permitted but the small one forbidden.” Should not the walls of the large one be like laths for the walls of the small one and the small one be permitted? Abba bar Rav Huna told him, explain it if they were extended more than ten. Rebbi Ashian stated before Rebbi Aḥa, if the large one is eleven but the small one ten. The baraita was searched for but not found.

Building stones which protrude from the building, if between one and the other is less than three hand-breadths they are considered as laths. Corners sticking out at each side are considered as laths. A wall which is indented and looks like a plank from inside but even on the outside or looks like a plank from outside but even on the inside is considered as laths. If it was prolonged, Abba bar Rav Huna said, one looks at it as if indented. Rav Ḥisdai objected, did we not state, “if a large courtyard collapsed into a small one, the large one is permitted but the small one forbidden.” Should not the walls of the large one be like laths for the walls of the small one and the small one be permitted? Abba bar Rav Huna told him, explain it if they were extended more than ten. Rebbi Ashian stated before Rebbi Aḥa, if the large one is eleven but the small one ten. The baraita was searched for but not found.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is [not] made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

HALAKHAH: “One surrounds with sticks, on condition,” etc. One surrounds with sticks for a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. This implies that an individual needs woof and warp. So Rebbi Jehudah differentiates between an individual and a caravan; do the rabbis not differentiate between an individual and a caravan? Let us hear from the following: “If a caravan rested on a hill ten [hand-breadths] high, or in a depression ten [hand-breadths] deep, or in a garden fenced in by a stone wall, one carries in it even if it is a kor or two kor, (one carries in it up to two bet se’ah), on condition that they do not leave an area of two bet se’ah unoccupied.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: even with camel saddles, even with tubs. The word of Rav Huna implies, only by humans. For Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥuna, to one or two one gives two bet se’ah, to three one gives six bet se’ah, from there on by proportion.

They wanted to say that Rebbi Meïr would admit to Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Jehudah will not admit to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Meïr will admit to Rebbi Jehudah? Does not Rebbi Meïr have simple poles, and you are saying so? If you are making double columns but no straight poles, he would think, perhaps a partition for the Sabbath is made in this way; he would make it in other places and become liable. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Neither of them yields to the other. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose (about) did not say this, he said something similar. Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Bun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: How far away does a double column have to be so it would not need a straight [plank]? He told him, less than three [hand-breadths] is considered closed, more than six is far away. Therefore we have to consider from three to four. If you would say that Rebbi Meïr yields to Rebbi Jehudah, should he not make a double column far away and not need a simple [plank]? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rebbi Meïr requires simple [planks] only according to Rebbi Jehudah’s method. Rebbi Yose said, even according to his own method, since in any case what is standing is not more than what is breached. Since what is standing should be more than what is breached it needs a simple [plank].

From a courtyard open to planks one carries from the courtyard to the planks but not from the planks to the courtyard. Therefore two are forbidden. Rebbi Abba said, not only two courtyards but even a single courtyard and in it two houses. They thought to say if they did not make an eruv; therefore if they made an eruv it would be permitted. Rebbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Ḥuna: even if they made an eruv it is forbidden, for the eruv does not make them one. Rav Ḥuna follows his opinion, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. Even if Rav Ḥuna would hold with Rebbi Joḥanan that there it is permitted, here he has to agree that it is forbidden. There, maybe tomorrow the well will run dry and then he would think that perhaps an eruv is efficient for the planks of wells when an eruv is not efficient for the planks of wells.

From a courtyard open to planks one carries from the courtyard to the planks but not from the planks to the courtyard. Therefore two are forbidden. Rebbi Abba said, not only two courtyards but even a single courtyard and in it two houses. They thought to say if they did not make an eruv; therefore if they made an eruv it would be permitted. Rebbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Ḥuna: even if they made an eruv it is forbidden, for the eruv does not make them one. Rav Ḥuna follows his opinion, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. Even if Rav Ḥuna would hold with Rebbi Joḥanan that there it is permitted, here he has to agree that it is forbidden. There, maybe tomorrow the well will run dry and then he would think that perhaps an eruv is efficient for the planks of wells when an eruv is not efficient for the planks of wells.

“And also I heard from him that if one of the dwellers in a courtyard had forgotten to make an eruv he is forbidden [to bring into] his house.” There it follows the rabbis, here Rebbi Eliezer. The rabbis say, a person may annul his right to his house but not his right to his courtyard. Rebbi Eliezer says, just as a person may annul his right to his house so he may annul his right to his courtyard. According to Rebbi Eliezer, could he not be treated like a guest and be permitted? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer fined him. Rebbi Shammai asked, according to Rebbi Eliezer, does one fine anybody in error about a matter of their words? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai asked, if somebody said, I am annulling the right to my house, would the rabbis agree? If somebody said, I am annulling the right to my courtyard, would Rebbi Eliezer agree?

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste (anything) [food] on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: And tenfemale donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food. Why does the verse say, and food? From here that everything is called food.

How can you consider deep as high? Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, if one said, my Sabbath rest is below.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

Does one give him the 2’000 [cubits] to his house? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, one gives him. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one does not give him. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: They disagree following Rebbi Meïr, but following Rebbi Jehudah everybody agrees that one gives him. The donkey driver-camel driver of Rebbi Meïr cannot be compared to the donkey driver-camel driver of Rebbi Jehudah. The donkey driver-camel driver of Rebbi Meïr cannot use his eruv since his eruv did not have the power to pull out his feet away from the people of his place; the donkey driver-camel driver of Rebbi Jehudah was thinking to pull out his feet away from the people of his place.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. “But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side.” So is the Mishnah: Either one makes an eruv to one side for two days or one does not make an eruv at all. Rebbi Eliezer agrees that one cannot make an eruv for half a day in the South and one for half a day in the North, for half a day in the South and one for half a day (in the North) for the people of his place. They told him, just as you did not split the day for us, so do not split two days for us. They agree that he should not put them in a basket. Rebbi Abba said, that he should not forget and eat it. If he did put it into a basket, he should bring the basket there. If he eats one of them he is a donkey driver-camel driver.

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: My mother’s sons bore ill-will against me, (etc.) [they made me a guard of the vineyards; my vineyard I did not guard.] What caused me to guard the vineyards? Because my vineyard I did not guard. What caused me to keep two days in Syria? Because I did not keep one day in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. What caused me to separate two ḥallot in Syria? Because I did not separate one ḥallah in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. Rebbi Joḥanan read for them, but I Gave them prescriptions which are not Good[and laws by which they cannot live]. Rebbi Abbahu went to Alexandria and made them carry lulavim on the Sabbath. Rebbi Immi heard it and said, who (feeds them) [brings them] Rebbi Abbahu every year? Rebbi Yose sent and wrote to them: even though we wrote you the order of holidays, do not change the usage of your departed ancestors.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Since Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba wanted to be strict with themselves, this implies that practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: also for a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral, practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, the entire day they were arguing one with the other until my father’s brother came, decided between then, and instituted that practice follow Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah for a ship and Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba for a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral. What is the difference between a sheep corral and a ship? The colleagues say, for a ship because its walls are part of itself; Rebbi Zeˋira said, because one removes it from these four cubits and puts it into those four cubits. What difference results between them? If it was a covered walkway, according to the colleagues it is permitted, according to Rebbi Zeˋira it is forbidden. If the sea was calm, according to the colleagues it is forbidden, according to Rebbi Zeˋira it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the Mishnah says that the four cubits which they mentioned are not a domain.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: one adds a limb to it. He lifted his eyes and looked at him. He told him, why are you looking at me? Do I need you that you enjoy it? Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. It is written and Moses would take the Tent, etc. How far away was it? One mil. It is not written “and it was that anybody asking Moses” but and it was that anybody asking the Eternal. From here that anybody visiting his teacher is as if he was visiting the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav: It is written, Eliahu from Tisbe said, etc. Was not Eliahu the ruler of the prophets? But it teaches that all the time he was standing before his teacher Aḥiyya from Shilo it was as if he stood before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of those of the House of Shilo: Even when Eliahu wanted water for his face Elisha would put it on his hands. What is the reason? Here is Elisha ben Shafaṭ, it is not written here “who studied Torah”, but who poured water on Eliahu’s hands. It is written: The lad Samuel was serving the Eternal before Eli. Did he not only serve Eli? But this teaches that all service which he rendered before his teacher Eli was as if he rendered if before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ismael stated: And Aaron and all the Elders of Israel came to eat bread with Moses’s father-in-law before god. Did they eat before God? But from here that anyone who receives a friend is as if he received the Divine Presence.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If a town is built like a bow, if between the ends there is [a distance of] 3’999 [cubits] he walks its entirety and outside it 2’000; 4’000 he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Samuel explained it. If he would put his sandals at one place he could go outside and put them on; and if he would put his sandals at another place he could go outside and put them on. He could come from either side to the outside. From one side it is forbidden, from both sides it is permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah. If there was a large city and in it a ditch ten [hand-breadths] deep and four wide, one looks where it is full of earth and pebbles. Otherwise one considers it open.

Rebbi Abba, Ammi bar Ezechiel in the name of Rav. If a city is built on the banks of a river, if between it and the river are four hand-breadths one measures from the wall, three one measures from the outer bank of the river unless the river be [wide] more than 70 and remainder. Where do we hold? If it descends ten hand-breadths in three [cubits] one measures from the outer bank of the river, if in four [cubits] one measures from the wall. So where we hold is between three and four.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One gives a fore-court to the city,” etc. Rav Ḥuna in the name of [Rav]: Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Meïr explained: From the city wall, why does the verse say, outwards? From here that one gives a fore-court to the city. The rabbis explained, outwards, why does the verse say, from the city wall? From that one does (not) give a fore-court to the city. Does this not mean that one gives a fore-court to the city? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abuna, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba, the Mishnah is finished.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Mar Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: One strip-measures (only in mountains but) not for the place of breaking the calf’s neck. This would be acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the Levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?