abba

“Unless one leaves outside like the town Ḥadašah in Jehudah.” As Senan, Ḥadašah, and Migdal-Gad. “Which has 5 inhabitants,” even men, women, and children. Assi said, but only Israel. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Simeon bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav: If they open into it. Rebbi Mana said, since they open into it they all are made one domain.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Where do they disagree? If they put their eruv in a public square. But if they put their eruv in houses even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai asked: If it was a city which made an eruv and he put his eruv in a public square, is it not as if they gave their eruv in houses?

A town which was destroyed. Rebbi Eleazar says, he walks its entirety and outside 2’000 cubits. Samuel says, he only has 2’000 cubits [from] the place of his eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rab: If somebody deposits his eruv in a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral he walks its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits. Are a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral not as if houses and apartments were destroyed?

Rav Ḥasdai said, each single one of ten Israel who dwell in one house must cede his rights. Rebbi Yasa said, each single one of ten Gentiles who dwell in one house must rent out his rights. Rebbi Abba said, it happened that a Persian’s wife rented out her courtyard without informing her husband. The case came before Rebbi Samuel and he declared it legal. They wanted to say, even his servant and farm-hand. Practice: An Israel cedes and the Gentile rents out. Then why should the Gentile not cede? He might change his mind. Then even if he rented out he might change his mind! From then on he would use it in robbery.

It was stated: “If two people were partners in a courtyard and one of them died, and the house fell as inheritance to an outside person. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: This is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since he dies there is no greater cession of rights than this. “If an outside person owned a house in the courtyard with them when he died and the house fell as inheritance to a dweller in the courtyard. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Still this is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. May one cede rights after dark? Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi went up to Ḥammat Gader. They asked Rebbi Ḥama bar Joseph and he permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan heard them and said, you did the correct thing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, you acted incorrectly. Do they disagree? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you moved. Rebbi Abba said, they disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased and moved. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you leased and that you moved.

Rebbi Abba asked, is it the same in the matter of partitions? How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath already had started in prohibition. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath already had started in permission. The strength of Rebbi Abba is from the following: Any Sabbath which started in permission is permitted, in prohibition is prohibited, except one who cedes rights; and he would say, except one who cedes or leases. May one lease rights from the owner of a hostelry? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Jonathan went to Ḥammat Gader. They said, we shall wait until the Elders of the South arrive here. There came Rebbi (Peres) {Nathan] the Southerner; they asked him and he permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, since the Gentile may remove us, we did not do anything. Simeon bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked, then our houses are not ours? Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Boethos: Our houses are not ours, to dwell with us; but they cannot force us to leave; but in a hostelry they remove us.

Rebbi Abba asked, is it the same in the matter of partitions? How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath already had started in prohibition. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath already had started in permission. The strength of Rebbi Abba is from the following: Any Sabbath which started in permission is permitted, in prohibition is prohibited, except one who cedes rights; and he would say, except one who cedes or leases. May one lease rights from the owner of a hostelry? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Jonathan went to Ḥammat Gader. They said, we shall wait until the Elders of the South arrive here. There came Rebbi (Peres) {Nathan] the Southerner; they asked him and he permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, since the Gentile may remove us, we did not do anything. Simeon bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked, then our houses are not ours? Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Boethos: Our houses are not ours, to dwell with us; but they cannot force us to leave; but in a hostelry they remove us.

Rebbi Abba asked, is it the same in the matter of partitions? How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath already had started in prohibition. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath already had started in permission. The strength of Rebbi Abba is from the following: Any Sabbath which started in permission is permitted, in prohibition is prohibited, except one who cedes rights; and he would say, except one who cedes or leases. May one lease rights from the owner of a hostelry? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Jonathan went to Ḥammat Gader. They said, we shall wait until the Elders of the South arrive here. There came Rebbi (Peres) {Nathan] the Southerner; they asked him and he permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, since the Gentile may remove us, we did not do anything. Simeon bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked, then our houses are not ours? Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Boethos: Our houses are not ours, to dwell with us; but they cannot force us to leave; but in a hostelry they remove us.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: They stated this in commercial practice. Everybody with wine, since he does not care about mixing, it does not need an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other, since he cares about mixing, it needs an eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah refers to the case that all is in one vessel. Rebbi Zeriqan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that they are used to drink οἰνόγαρον. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus says, in every case they are forbidden until they make an eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Ze`ira: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Meïr. Which [statement of] Rebbi Meïr? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Meïr who said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr who said that one may not make an eruv for a person without his knowledge. In the opinion of Rebbi Mana, following Rebbi Ze`ira, in the opinion of Rav following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: They stated this in commercial practice. Everybody with wine, since he does not care about mixing, it does not need an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other, since he cares about mixing, it needs an eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah refers to the case that all is in one vessel. Rebbi Zeriqan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that they are used to drink οἰνόγαρον. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus says, in every case they are forbidden until they make an eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Ze`ira: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Meïr. Which [statement of] Rebbi Meïr? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Meïr who said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr who said that one may not make an eruv for a person without his knowledge. In the opinion of Rebbi Mana, following Rebbi Ze`ira, in the opinion of Rav following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Brothers sharing property who were eating at their father’s table,” etc. Where is the main dwelling? Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Samuel disagreed. One said, at the place of their bread, but the other said, at the place of sleeping. We did not know who said what but since Samuel said, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is rabbinically forbidden, he must say, at the place of their bread. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel, “Brothers who were eating”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah is if they are sustained by their father. In any case, are they not partners in what they are eating? Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Samuel explained to me that their father gives them property rights only for what they are eating. Then even if the eruv does not come to them? They treated it as a house where they deposited the eruv. Samuel said, he and his sons and the people of his house make an eruv with one loaf. Does he disagree? There he says, at the place of their bread, and here he says so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it. This is similar to what Rebbi Aḥawa bar Rebbi Ze`ira said, one may make an eruv with half a loaf. But we have stated: “Even if it was baked from a se’ah and was sliced one may not use it for eruv”, and you are saying so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it.

A house where they deposited the eruv. The mother of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had died when Rebbi Yasa said to Rebbi Abbahu, state it, and he stated: The House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Hamnuna said, the house in which the eruv is deposited does not need anything. Rebbi Ḥasdai said, he is made like a partner. Rebbi Hamnuna told him, the words of the rabbis do not let you, 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 Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. If you are saying that he is like a partner, he should forbid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the people of the alley deposited the eruv in two places, if because the space was not enough, it is permitted, if in order to split the eruv it is forbidden.

It is obvious that one may rely on participation in alleys. May one rely on participation in courtyards? Both Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Ze`ira, one in the name of Mar Uqban, the other in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jehudah: One may rely on participation in courtyards in an emergency on the first Sabbath. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Jehudah: For example those of Bar Delaiah who do not insist on their small change. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even not like those of Bar Delaiah who do not insist on their small change.

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; there is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile. There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; for if he dwelt on an upper floor you take him down to forbid. There is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile for if he dwelt in the inner [courtyard] you would take him out to forbid. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is a rule of enclosure for a Gentile, for if an Israel and a Gentile were dwelling in the inner [courtyard] he never forbids unless there be two Israel. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: He who has a stone partition inside his house ten hand-breadths high, if an Israel he does not forbid, if a Gentile he forbids. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall was surrounded by ladders on both sides one makes two eruvin but not one eruv. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there because of the ladders they have the status of doors, but here from the upper floors one is used to descend, from the lower one is not used to ascend.

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; there is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile. There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; for if he dwelt on an upper floor you take him down to forbid. There is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile for if he dwelt in the inner [courtyard] you would take him out to forbid. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is a rule of enclosure for a Gentile, for if an Israel and a Gentile were dwelling in the inner [courtyard] he never forbids unless there be two Israel. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: He who has a stone partition inside his house ten hand-breadths high, if an Israel he does not forbid, if a Gentile he forbids. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall was surrounded by ladders on both sides one makes two eruvin but not one eruv. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there because of the ladders they have the status of doors, but here from the upper floors one is used to descend, from the lower one is not used to ascend.

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; there is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile. There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; for if he dwelt on an upper floor you take him down to forbid. There is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile for if he dwelt in the inner [courtyard] you would take him out to forbid. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is a rule of enclosure for a Gentile, for if an Israel and a Gentile were dwelling in the inner [courtyard] he never forbids unless there be two Israel. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: He who has a stone partition inside his house ten hand-breadths high, if an Israel he does not forbid, if a Gentile he forbids. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall was surrounded by ladders on both sides one makes two eruvin but not one eruv. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there because of the ladders they have the status of doors, but here from the upper floors one is used to descend, from the lower one is not used to ascend.

They asked before Rebbi Abba: Concerning what you are saying about a window between two courtyards, is it the same for a window between two houses? He told them, yes. Is it the same for a window between two roofs? He told them, yes. May one make an eruv across skylights? Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is a disagreement between Rav and Samuel, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city are one domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah; Rav said, one may move inside them even a kor, even two kor.

They asked before Rebbi Abba: Concerning what you are saying about a window between two courtyards, is it the same for a window between two houses? He told them, yes. Is it the same for a window between two roofs? He told them, yes. May one make an eruv across skylights? Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is a disagreement between Rav and Samuel, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city are one domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah; Rav said, one may move inside them even a kor, even two kor.

It was stated: “One may use anything to reduce, stones, bricks, a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder if it was fastened.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even if it was not fastened. But was it not stated “if it was fastened”? Rebbi Abba said, if it was dedicated for this purpose. Rebbi La instructed following this Tanna, only if it was fastened. Both Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, one in the name of Mar Uqban, and one in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: It is necessary that between two steps there be less than three [hand-breadths] and each be four hand-breadths wide; the posts complement the four. Yasa said, a block in which he carved steps reduces. In any case, the posts do not complement ten; it is like a high step. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: It must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as separate place. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The step which reduces from ten must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as a separate place. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked: If one brought a board of seven hand-breadths and raised it less than three from the ground, is it permitted? There you are saying, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed, and here you should be saying, everything less than four [handbreadths] is considered closed. If you want to object, object to the following: If one brought a wall of slightly more than four hand-breadths and raised it less than two hand-breadths from the ground, should it come following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four hand-breadths, on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space?

It was stated: “One may use anything to reduce, stones, bricks, a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder if it was fastened.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even if it was not fastened. But was it not stated “if it was fastened”? Rebbi Abba said, if it was dedicated for this purpose. Rebbi La instructed following this Tanna, only if it was fastened. Both Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, one in the name of Mar Uqban, and one in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: It is necessary that between two steps there be less than three [hand-breadths] and each be four hand-breadths wide; the posts complement the four. Yasa said, a block in which he carved steps reduces. In any case, the posts do not complement ten; it is like a high step. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: It must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as separate place. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The step which reduces from ten must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as a separate place. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked: If one brought a board of seven hand-breadths and raised it less than three from the ground, is it permitted? There you are saying, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed, and here you should be saying, everything less than four [handbreadths] is considered closed. If you want to object, object to the following: If one brought a wall of slightly more than four hand-breadths and raised it less than two hand-breadths from the ground, should it come following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four hand-breadths, on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.

We heard about partitions in a private domain, we heard about partitions in a public domain. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall is surrounded by ladders on both sides, one makes two eruvin and may not make one eruv. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, since they are not at the same place, are they like doors?

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: It happened that a woman made an eruv for her mother-in-law without her knowledge. The case came before Rebbi Ismael who wanted to forbid. Rebbi Ḥiyya told him, I heard from your father that if you can be lenient in eruvin you should be lenient.

The House of Rebbi Yannai are saying, even a peg to hang his shoes on. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, even a metal plate, even a table. Rav said, but only what may be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba said, it happened that a person had a chicken coop inside another person’s house, where he could enter without asking for permission. The case came before Rav who said, since he is obligated to give them water it is as if it could be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Samuel: The students of Rebbi Joḥanan ascended to Akhbara and relied on the statement of Rebbi Yannai. Ḥizqiah does not say so but: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi ascended to Akhbara and heard from the House of Rebbi Yannai that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

The House of Rebbi Yannai are saying, even a peg to hang his shoes on. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, even a metal plate, even a table. Rav said, but only what may be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba said, it happened that a person had a chicken coop inside another person’s house, where he could enter without asking for permission. The case came before Rav who said, since he is obligated to give them water it is as if it could be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Samuel: The students of Rebbi Joḥanan ascended to Akhbara and relied on the statement of Rebbi Yannai. Ḥizqiah does not say so but: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi ascended to Akhbara and heard from the House of Rebbi Yannai that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia said it only for Lake Genezareth since mountains surround it. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, if one threw from a circular road into public domain or from public domain into it? He said to him, in your opinion a public domain does not exist. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no public domain unless it be open from one end of the world to the other. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted since he said, there is no public domain in this world, only in the future as it is written, every valley will be lifted. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “What is a private domain? The paths of Bet-Gilgul. Private domain regarding the Sabbat but public domain for impurity.”

Does it need a partition? Rebbi Abba said, it needs a partition. Rebbi Yose said, it does not need a partition. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, does Rebbi Abba not say it correctly? As we have stated, “Rebbi Jehudah says, a partition should not be more than the wall between them.” He said to them, there, where there is a roof, it does not need a partition. But here, where there is no roof, it needs a partition, as Rav Jehudah said, if it is open to an agricultural area, but if it is open to the public domain it is forbidden if there are no partitions, but if there is a partition it is permitted.

Does it need a partition? Rebbi Abba said, it needs a partition. Rebbi Yose said, it does not need a partition. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, does Rebbi Abba not say it correctly? As we have stated, “Rebbi Jehudah says, a partition should not be more than the wall between them.” He said to them, there, where there is a roof, it does not need a partition. But here, where there is no roof, it needs a partition, as Rav Jehudah said, if it is open to an agricultural area, but if it is open to the public domain it is forbidden if there are no partitions, but if there is a partition it is permitted.

“But in times of danger he covers them and goes away.” “If it was in the rainy season he covers himself with leather and covers them.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: This you are saying if it is soft. But if it is hard it is like a load. If the place was at an incline, but if it was not an incline this does not apply.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose.

“If somebody leaves to travel by sea, before thirty days he does not have to check; within thirty [days] he has to check”. That is to say, if he intends to return. But if he does not intend to return, even before thirty days he has to check. If there is a doubt; but if it is certain then even from New Year’s Day. Rebbi Abba said, but even if he intends to return he has to check, maybe he will change his mind and not return.

“Where did they say two rows in the cellar,” etc. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He peels it like a Gamma. Bar Qappara stated, he peels it like two Gamma. If it was situated in the middle of the room. In the opinion of Rav Huna he strips it of one garment, in the opinion of Bar Qappara he strips it of two garments. If it was built in steps, he strips it by many Gamma. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The outermost row which is the uppermost which sees both door and beam of the roof, [and] the one inside of it. It was stated: the one below it. They wanted to say that he who says, the one inside of it, so much more that one below it. He who says, the one below it, therefore not the one inside of it. If half a row was used, it is obvious that what was used has inside of it and below it. That which was not used has inside of it and below it. That is to say, if they are spaced. But if they are tightly packed he passes the light over them and it is enough. Does this mean that they did worry about things falling down? Rebbi Phineas from Yafo said, I am saying that the servant introduced leavened matter when he placed them.

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words.” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I said, it is correct. There (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux].”

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ila, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but the second both following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Yose? He told him, if not following Rebbi Yose, we may say not following Rebbi Meïr since we find that Rebbi Yose is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Meïr is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. I asked him, even in a case where it is suspended by word of the Torah? He told me, if I explain it that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwelling, what do you have in your hand? It was stated: “For Gentiles’ dwelling one suspends, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Rebbi Meïr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, and so it was stated: “Suspended [and] impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Should he not burn in the morning? Explain it that he was lazy and did not burn. You should know that this is so, since it was stated “impure”. Not because he was lazy and did not burn? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the impurity came to it at that moment and one cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: You shall not eat it, on the earth you shall you shall spill it like water. I did permit you its blood only for spilling. Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, is not about disqualified sancta written so, you shall not eat it, on the earth you shall spill it like water? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it was said for preparation. Just as the water prepares, so the blood shall prepare.

HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state, “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.

But is it not written: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water. Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass. But is it not written: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana] said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

“Cooks’ starch.” Rebbi Hitta bar Abba said, one brings ears of grain which are less than one-third ripe, pounds them, forms them like loaves of saffron, and puts them in the pot, so they should absorb the impurities.

If they were exiled from one place to another and wanted to change their ways? Would it be as Rebbi Abba said, the people of Mesha took it upon themselves not to travel on the ocean. They came, asked Rebbi, and said to him, our forefathers used not to travel by sea; what is our situation? He said to them, since your forefathers treated it as a prohibition, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. May a person not ask about his vow? There he asks when he made the vow, but here their ancestors made the vow. Then they should be permitted a fortiori. Rebbi Ḥanania said, it is not because of this but because of the following. Rebbi was the student of Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Jehudah said, one is forbidden to travel by sea.

HALAKHAH: Is it permitted to raise them? Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil. They wanted to say, he who said it is permitted to sell [says] it is permitted to leave it alone. But he who says, it is forbidden to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell it [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. What is the difference between selling and leaving alone? There, because he intends to sell it to him it is like the Gentile’s animal. But here it is the Jew’s animal and he is suspected about it.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only about a male horse because it kills [its owner] in war. Some say, because it runs after a female, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after a female, [this one] does not run after a female. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a large domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a small domestic animal.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: Even calf meat? He said to him, even calf meat. Even fowl meat? He said to him, even fowl meat. They wanted to say, even an egg, even colocasia. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanin said, but only what needs slaughter.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Saul in the name of Rebbi: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached to the Tiberians following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, but some say Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman: A place where one is used to ignite is better than a place where one is used not to ignite. Rebbi Jeremiah said, you should know that this is so since on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both are saying, you should know that this is so since a man is modest and will not engage in sexual activity when a light is burning. Both he who said, one lights, as he who said, one does not light, because of leading into sin. He who said that one lights, because he will see and be ashamed. But he who said that one does not light, that he should not see and become desirous. It was stated: Even in (synagogues) [privies] and wash rooms. For that it is necessary: One ignites even in a place where one is not used to ignite.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Saul in the name of Rebbi: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached to the Tiberians following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, but some say Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman: A place where one is used to ignite is better than a place where one is used not to ignite. Rebbi Jeremiah said, you should know that this is so since on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both are saying, you should know that this is so since a man is modest and will not engage in sexual activity when a light is burning. Both he who said, one lights, as he who said, one does not light, because of leading into sin. He who said that one lights, because he will see and be ashamed. But he who said that one does not light, that he should not see and become desirous. It was stated: Even in (synagogues) [privies] and wash rooms. For that it is necessary: One ignites even in a place where one is not used to ignite.

On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Rav said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Eleazar said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, why did they say, one may soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Because of danger. Is there a difference between the danger on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath and a Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis objected, a Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath, the shew-breads are distributed in the evening.” There is a difference. Since this is a small matter, he might forget and eat. Rebbi Phineas objected:: A baraita of Rebbi Eleazar disagrees with him. The Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath is a day of rest; on a weekday it is a day of rest. If one is resting on a weekday, not so much more on a Sabbath? Is it not necessary that even things which you are permitted to do on a weekday you have to refrain from on a Sabbath? What would this be? This is soaking pickles and preserves. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. The matter is evident for anything which is served with cold food but for anything which is served with hot food while it is heated he can trim it. Rebbi Mana said, if you are saying so, also he will be embarrassed and will not trim; it will turn out that he will become endangered. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: May one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? He said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa asked Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa, may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? They said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi, may one say to the maker of fried food make me some fried food? He said to him, it is permitted. Make me baked goods? Permitted. Prepare me a wick? No. What is the difference between one and the other? This is food, the other is not food.

Manure in an alley one sweeps aside, in a cowshed and a courtyard one takes it out to the dungheap. Rebbi Abba said, this is for a small courtyard, but in a large courtyard one sweeps it aside. In a cowshed, whether large or small, one takes out to the dungheap. Rebbi Abba said, because its ugliness is dangerous.

Manure in an alley one sweeps aside, in a cowshed and a courtyard one takes it out to the dungheap. Rebbi Abba said, this is for a small courtyard, but in a large courtyard one sweeps it aside. In a cowshed, whether large or small, one takes out to the dungheap. Rebbi Abba said, because its ugliness is dangerous.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible to eat without redemption since Temple property cannot leave without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with Sabbatical money. He said to him, the treasurer exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. But here the vow of abandonment precedes his dedication. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Abba bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: If one leased his house to another and needs the money? He said to him, it is unthinkable that he should have to starve to death. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi [Il]la both say, μίστωσις like ὠνή is acquired by buying. It was stated: If one leased his house to another and went and dedicated it, [the renter] lives in it and pays the rent to the Sanctuary. When? If he did not pay the rent in advance, but if he paid the rent in advance he lives there for free. In the days of Rebbi Mana there was a company in Sepphoris, and their children were taken as pledges. When they were about to leave, Rebbi Mana published (so) [a proclamation] following Rebbi Immi. He said, not that I am of his opinion, but because of the Sepphoreans that they should not permanently lose their children.

HALAKHAH: From where that he must slaughter it for its purpose? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: And you shall say, a Pesaḥ slaughter it is; to imply that if he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ it is Pesaḥ, otherwise it is not Pesaḥ. From where the remainder of its actions? You shall make [a Pesaḥ], that all its actions shall be for the purpose of Pesaḥ. But then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, slaughter But then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, slaughter. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “They went, ate, and drank. In the evening they returned and red the Great Hallel.” What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Pamakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to Almighty God. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; Truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. Rebbi Mana said, it is ours. The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The festival offering of the Fourteenth could come from tithe. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This means that it is voluntary. If you would say that it is obligatory, can anything which is obligatory come from tithe?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr 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, Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Meïr are, 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 Pesaḥ 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 taught us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ 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 Yannai 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, even if there is no (one) [other] baby to circumcise. If you are treating it like something which is not a fixed amount, only if there remains (one) [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 Ḥuna 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 Ahawah 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.

HALAKHAH: “How does one roast the Pesaḥ” etc. Why of pomegranates? Rebbi Ḥiyyas bar Abba said, all wood oozes fluid, but of pomegranates does not ooze fluid. Where do we hold? If fresh, even pomegranate {[wood} oozes. If dry, all other wood does not ooze. But it is so: All other wood if it is dry outside still is moist inside. Pomegranate {wood} if dry outside is dry inside.

Everybody agrees that “on it” means “in contact”. Where do they disagree? About “on”. Abba Shaul says, on the array, near the array. But the rabbis say, on the array, on top of the array. It turns out that Abba Shaul parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and the rabbis Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi says, even if he made them two arrangements of fourteen, one considers the upper one as nonexistent and the lower ones are qualified. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Abba Shaul use in the method of Rebbi Meïr for the table.

Everybody agrees that “on it” means “in contact”. Where do they disagree? About “on”. Abba Shaul says, on the array, near the array. But the rabbis say, on the array, on top of the array. It turns out that Abba Shaul parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and the rabbis Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi says, even if he made them two arrangements of fourteen, one considers the upper one as nonexistent and the lower ones are qualified. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Abba Shaul use in the method of Rebbi Meïr for the table.

Everybody agrees that “on it” means “in contact”. Where do they disagree? About “on”. Abba Shaul says, on the array, near the array. But the rabbis say, on the array, on top of the array. It turns out that Abba Shaul parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and the rabbis Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi says, even if he made them two arrangements of fourteen, one considers the upper one as nonexistent and the lower ones are qualified. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Abba Shaul use in the method of Rebbi Meïr for the table.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, how does one act if they are half and half? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One defiles one person with a crawling animal. Samuel said, one sends one person on a far-away trip. This follows him who said, a single person clinches for impurity. But for him who said, a single person does not clinch for impurity, one has to send two persons away. Rav’s opinion parallels Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, if the public was touching carcasses, touching crawling animals, one makes it in impurity if there is not water there to immerse in; but if there is water to immerse in, one does not make it in impurity. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it comes while the Temple vessels are impure, comes in impurity; if it comes in impurity of Temple vessels, comes in impurity of hands, comes in impurity of knives.

The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Issy, one switches and one follows as it was stated. The one who switches does not have these problems.And how much does he have to break? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: until the hand be grated. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Abba both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, until the hand be grated; but the other said, even a finger nail. He who said the hand, so much more the finger nail. He who said the finger nail, but not the hand.Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, one never is liable unless one break a bone on which there is meat in the size of an olive, at one place of meat. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked, then he never should be liable unless he take a stone and smash it into little pieces. A bone, to make him liable for each single bone. This is, with one warning. But with two warnings, then he will be twice liable even for a single bone which he broke repeatedly. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break a bone without meat. He said this only that he cannot be whipped, but as a prohibition, it is prohibited.

The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Issy, one switches and one follows as it was stated. The one who switches does not have these problems.And how much does he have to break? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: until the hand be grated. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Abba both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, until the hand be grated; but the other said, even a finger nail. He who said the hand, so much more the finger nail. He who said the finger nail, but not the hand.Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, one never is liable unless one break a bone on which there is meat in the size of an olive, at one place of meat. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked, then he never should be liable unless he take a stone and smash it into little pieces. A bone, to make him liable for each single bone. This is, with one warning. But with two warnings, then he will be twice liable even for a single bone which he broke repeatedly. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break a bone without meat. He said this only that he cannot be whipped, but as a prohibition, it is prohibited.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives) he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there, this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: Then one who removes should not be liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : One who removes is not liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but it was stated there, an individual who removed the volume of an olive from a group is liable but he did not disqualify himself as a member of the group. This implies, even if he did not eat. If you would say, he ate, why did he not disqualify himself as a member of the group? Rebbi Yose said, when he removed it he disqualified it. Even if he ate, he ate something disqualified. Where was this said? There is breaking after breaking but not removing after removing. Either this means that when he removes it, he disqualifies it, or it means that he is not liable up to the moment when he eats.

An individual can move his part in the entire room, but a group cannot move their part in the entire room. But did we not state “two groups”? He only said two; therefore not one. But did we not state, “the samovar in the middle”? The place of the waiter proves where his group is. But did we not state, “the newly-wed may turn aside her face and eat”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because of shyness

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb”?

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there, “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his hands.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Abba bar bar Hana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : The Mishnah if he was jailed by Jews. But if he was jailed by gentiles, whose mouth speaks vanity and whose oath is false oath. If he was held outside of Jerusalem, but if he was held in Jerusalem even if they did not promise it is as if they had promised.

HALAKHAH: “Seven days before the Day of Atonement,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan understood if from the following: As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command for future generations. To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves, the other also must be atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves

HALAKHAH: “Seven days before the Day of Atonement,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan understood if from the following: As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command for future generations. To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves, the other also must be atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Bar Qappara understood it from the following. As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command, this is burning of the Cow. It is said here, did the Eternal command, and it is said there, this is the low of the Torah which the Eternal commanded, saying.” To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? As Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement valid only through the High Priest, the other also is atonement through the High Priest.

In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why is the death of Aaron’s sons mentioned in the matter when they died during initiation? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Aaron’s sons died on the First of Nisan; why does He mention their death at the Day of Atonement? To teach you that just as the Day of Atonement atones for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Ba bar Binah said, why did the verse append the death of Miriam to the Chapter of the Cow? To teach you that just as the ashes of the Cow atone for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, why did the verse append the death of Aaron to the breaking of the Tablets? To teach you that the death of the Just is as hard for the Holy One, praise to Him, as the breaking of the Tablets.

“To the Palhedrin lodge.” Abba Shaul was calling it the council member’s lodge. Earlier it was called the council member’s lodge. But now one calls it the Palhedrin lodge. The ex-priests, a passing matter. In the first {Temple}, where he, his son, and his grandson served, there were eighteen priests serving. But in the second, where they bought it for money, but some say that they killed one another by sorcery, there served 80 priests, but some say 81, and some say 82, and some say 84, and some say 85. And from these Simeon the Just served for 40 years. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written, the fear of the Eternal adds days, these are the priests who served in the first Temple, but the years of the wicked ones will be shortened’, these are those who served in the second building. It happened that one sent through his son two measures of silver, full of silver, and their covers silver. Another came and sent through his son two measures of gold, full of gold, and their covers gold. They said, the foal overturned the candelabrum.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Does not a baraita disagree? “ lf somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 50 in one vessel each. But if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Somebody could say, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim, simply, without specifying the number of vessels in which be brings them; why does he specify “to bring them in two vessels”? To bring them 50 in one vessel each/ And we have stated on this, if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since up to 60 they can be mixed, it is as if from the start he fixed it at 60. It would be necessary to say, “if somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 60 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 30 in one vessel each. But if he brought 40 in one vessel and 20 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” It was found stated thus.

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: May one infer law of obligations from issaron? It was found stated, “he inferred law of obligations from issaron.” Rebbi Abun said, only he should not bring them in three vessels. Rebbi Abba Mamal said, even in many vessels.

“One brings before him oxen, and he-goats, and sheep.” Why did he not say, a? Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, is he not anyhow obliged to pour? It was found stated, “and a goat”.

If he removed and the wind blew it away, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ḥanina, since Rebbi Ḥanina said, if a fistful was put in the fire when the wind blew it away, by the last blowing the owner was atoned for and the remainders freed from larceny. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the fire engulfed most of it. What means “most of it”? Most of the fistful, or had it been said about most of each separate lump? There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It had been said about most of each separate lump.

But does the verse not speak of cattle? Where does the verse imply that it is written about the daily morning sacrifice? Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: It is written here arranging, and it is written there, the Cohen shall arrange them. Since concerning the arrangement mentioned there, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice, so also concerning the arrangement mentioned here, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this is unnecessary. From the meaning of they shall arrange, do we not understand that they are two? And you explain, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two; and it was stated so: Nothing precedes the daily sacrifice but incense.