abbin

Abbin asked: It he mixed them, what? Let us hear from the following: “One may store away in garments, and produce, and pigeon wings.” Rebbi Yose ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: This means, if they are not much rotten. But if they are much rotten it is forbidden to store away in them.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: it was on the third day when they hurt. It does not say, “when it hurt”, but when they hurt, at a time when all their limbs hurt them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan ordered for the women having newborns, that all treatments which you give on a weekday should be given on the Sabbath. This is necessary for the case that the third day falls on a Sabbath. Samuel said, because of the danger. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is because of the danger one heats hot water for him! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: One heats hot water for him. And it was stated thus: A person heats a linen cloth and puts it on (a wound) (his belly) on the Sabbath. A person may not take a bottle full of hot water and put it on his belly on the Sabbath. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, on the contrary it is permitted.

Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councillors and one rural, who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councillors went in first and left first. The rural ones went and acquired [knowledge in] Torah. They came and wanted to have precedence. It was asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked it from Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rebbi Benaiah’s house of study: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for clothing, and for livelihood, but not for the Academy. Rebbi Abbin said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? It is more precious than pearls, even than he who enters into the Most Holy [of the Sanctuary.]

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified.” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abbin said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14 which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, one hangs the yeast-sieve,” etc. It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree that one sets up new tents on the Sabbath. Where do they disagree? About extending, for Rebbi Eliezer says one adds on a holiday but one does not add on a Sabbath, but the Sages say, one does not add on a holiday, and it is not necessary to say on a Sabbath.” Do we not deal here with an addition? Rebbi Abbin bar Cahana said, explain it about a new yeast-sieve which he turns into an implement. A fortiori.

Rav said, in a town built of tents, everybody measures from his tent. If there were three huts and three barns one measures from the outer one. Issy objected, is it not written, a sign you should have outside the camp? How could they relieve themselves outside? Rebbi Ḥiyya the son of Rebbi Sabbatai asked, how could they go to Moses’s house of study? Moses built them three huts and three barns. Rebbi Yose says, because they were travelling and camping by the Word, was it not temporary? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he would bring them into the Land, it is as if it were permanent. Because of this Rebbi Abbin said, Moses built them three huts and three barns.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “Also its ledges and walls were measured with it.” Rav Hoshaia asked: is the airspace of a courtyard measured with it? Let us hear from the following: A house which was breached on one side is measured with it, from two sides it is not measured with it. Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rav Jehudah, if its beam had been removed. But if its beam had not been removed it is measured with it. If the beam had been removed is it not like the airspace of a courtyard? There it was enclosed as a dwelling, here it was not enclosed as a dwelling. “If he measures he should not be measuring from the center since he would lose, but from the corners.”

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].”

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, and song invalidate the sacrifice.” Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar: The entire congregationwere bowing down, these are Israel, and the song was sung, these are the Levites, and the trumpets were trumpeting, these are the Cohanim, everything up to the end of the elevation offering, all are indispensable for the sacrifice. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Eleazar understood it from here: And I gave the Levites to Aaron and his sons from the midst of the Children of Israel, these are the Levites, to work the service of the Children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, these are the Cohanim, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song, so there shall be no plague when the Children of Israel approach the Sanctuary, these are Israel.

Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything they made dependent on usage. There were acacia trees in Migdal Sevaya. They came and asked Rebbi Ḥanania, the colleague of the rabbis, may one use them for work? He told them, since your ancestors used to treat them as forbidden, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abbin. In any case which is permitted but in error he treats it as forbidden, if he asks they will permit him. But in any case where he knows that it is permitted but he has the usage to treat it as forbidden, if he asks they will not permit him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad majus. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which left what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? If you are saying that piggul and leftovers do not disqualify heave, about that which left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by [touching] itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad maius. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which was left, what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which was left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? About that which was left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by touching itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

Mufaz gold. Rebbi Patroki the brother of Rebbi Drosa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Bina: It looks like fire which was kindled with sulphur. Rebbi Abbin, it is called after its place, and gold from Ufaz.

How does he profit? Rebbi Abbin said in the name of the rabbis there, since the court could take a pledge from but did not take any pledge he is like one who profited.

“When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics,” denars, “they continued to give sela`im,” as their meaning, “they continued to give minted coins,” half tetradrachmas, they wanted to give denars,” quarters, but these were not accepted by the following: and we accepted for us as commandment to give a sheqel three times in the year for the service in our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: From here that a person has to give his sheqel three times a year; <from here that a person is responsible for the alienation of his sheqel three times a year;> from here that one does not importune people more than three times a year. Rebbi Abbin said, from here the three se`ah, from here the three boxes, from here the three collection times.

The sanctity of the altar falls on defective animals. In which respect? For shearing and work. “ If somebody dedicated a female for his elevation offering, or his Pesaḥ, or his reparation offering, it effects substitution. Rebbi Simeon says, for his elevation offering it effects substitution; for his Pesaḥ or his reparation offering it does not effect substitution.” “ Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, neither for his elevation offering, nor his Pesaḥ, nor his reparation offering, does it effect substitution.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird. [And] Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is, if there are differences in its own kind, so much more if it is not its own kind. What are differences in its own kind? As it was stated, “a yearling as reparation offering, and he brought one of two years, he satisfied his obligation; a two-year old as reparation offering, and he brought one of three years, he did not satisfy his obligation”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua said the same. As Rebbi Joshua said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth, so Rebbi Simeon said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth. If you would say that they are sancta as to their body, they should graze. “Rebbi said, I agree with Rebbi Simeon about the Pesah; could the Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering? But I do not agree with the words of Rebbi Simeon for reparation offerings; could a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering?” Rebbi Abbin said, in case a Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering, its body is brought as well-being offering; in case a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering, its body cannot be brought as elevation offering. What about it? In one case one says, it is sanctified for its money’s worth; in one case one says, it is sanctified in its body.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagari said before Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The reason of this Tanna: But if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered. Why does the verse say, impure? But even impure for this denomination. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, but if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered; anything which could be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place does not effect substitution. This excludes the female of a bird which even though it cannot be sacrificed here is fit to be sacrificed at another place. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Are there not the animals used for active or passive bestiality, which can be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place, and they effect substitution? He said to them, also I did speak only about really impure ones. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise?

HALAKHAH: “All spittle,” etc. Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification was there. Rebbi Ḥanina said, they were stabbing wild donkeys in Jerusalem and the feet of the pilgrims were immersed in blood up to their knee joints. [They came before the Sages who did not tell them anything.] Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A Gentile fortification was there.

Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they did not decide about spittle in Jerusalem? [Was it not said] about this, Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification was there? In the remainder of the days of a year the impure ones are walking on the path and the pure ones are walking on the shoulder. The pure ones walk without saying anything, the impure ones tell them, keep apart. During a holiday the pure ones are walking on the path and the impure ones are walking on the shoulder. The impure ones walk without saying anything, the pure ones tell them, keep apart.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, when you collect from your threshing floor and your wine press. From the waste of the threshing floor and the wine press you make your thatching. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, and mist rose from the earth. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, each of them follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan who said that the clouds were above infers it from when you collect. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that the clouds were below infers it from the clouds. Rebbi Abbin said, each of them follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan compares it to one who sends to another an amphora and its pitcher. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish compares it to one who says to another, bring your box and take wheat for yourself.

Samuel said, this you only are saying lengthwise; but crosswise it is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, both lengthwise and crosswise are qualified. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Why are Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both saying? He told them, because disqualified roofing disqualifies only in four cubits. A baraita disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: A sukkah which only contains his head, most of his body, and his table. If he brought a plank and added from it three hand-breadths. If you would say crosswise, this is impossible since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible not to sleep under it.

“Dried up is disqualified.” Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: The dried-up is disqualified because the dead ones cannot praise the Eternal. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “the dried up one is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah told them, do they not have their sons inherit their lulavim in the port cities overseas? They told him, one does not make inferences from emergency situations.” They asked before Rebbi Avinna, if its fringe was dried up, what? What is the difference to when its head was chopped off? He told them, the first is splendor, the second is not splendor.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated so that the eighth day was a separate holiday, a separate lottery, a separate benediction, a separate sacrifice. Holiday, as Rebbi Abbin said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, for all of them is written and on day, but here is written on day, to teach you that it is a separate holiday. Lottery, Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” Benediction, Illa said, time. Sacrifice, one bull and one ram.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy, so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

“Rebbi answered to confirm the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The main text of the document proves whether it is simple or not simple.” What is the main text of a document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said: witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” And did we not state: this is the formula for documents of indebtedness? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness. Rebbi Abbin said, even if you say, it is the same for simple and knotted, for a simple document it is indispensable, for a knotted one it is not indispensable. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one adds to the practice. A simple document has two [winesses], a knotted one three, but they do it with three. A simple document inside, a knotted one on its back, but they do it inside and on its back.