anan

“They are the Cohen’s property.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18: 8): “To you I gave it as mošḥâ.” As mošḥâ, for importance. As mošḥâ, for anointing. As mošḥâ, as fuel. I would say, both for impure and pure. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, (Deut. 26:14) “I did not burn any of it,” but one liquidates heave in impurity. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: From where for Second Tithe proper which became impure that one may not use it as fuel? The verse says, “I did not burn any of it in impurity”. One may redeem it and you are saying this? One may only interpret it as referring to what was bought with Second Tithe money. Rebbi Jehudah said, but for First Fruits which became impure it is the opinion of everybody.

Rebbi Joḥanan went to a place and said, I am Ben Azai here. There came an old man to ask him. He said, “the growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, second tithe and first tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane.” There, you say their growth is permitted, why do you say here, their growth is forbidden? He said to him, where do we say their growth is permitted? For things whose seeds disappear. Where do we say their growth is forbidden? For things whose seeds do not disappear. He said to him, but did we not state: “What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions.” Are arum, garlic, and onions obligated for First Fruits? He said, the Ben Azai from here went away as you say. He asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, for tithe everything was classified as things whose seeds do not disappear.

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, in the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle you treat it as a vegetable but in the Sabbatical as a tree. How is that? From the fifth to the sixth, sixth. From the sixth to the Sabbatical, sixth. If it stayed from the fifth to the sixth to the Sabbatical, if he harvested it in the Sabbatical [it is tithed for the] sixth; if he harvested it in the sixth [it is tithed for the] fifth. If it stayed from the sixth to the Sabbatical to the eighth, if he harvested it in the eighth [it is tithed for the] eighth. “Our teachers took the problem up a second time and voted that for a citron the moment it is harvested determines its tithe and Sabbatical status.”

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everybody agrees that its New Year is the 15th of Šebaṭ. Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jonathan: According to years or according to seasons? He said to him, according to years and even in an intercalary year.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everybody agrees that its New Year is the 15th of Šebaṭ. Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jonathan: According to years or according to seasons? He said to him, according to years and even in an intercalary year.

How often does a person have to rise before an Elder? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: twice a day. Rebbi Eleazar said, once a day. Was it not stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, from where that an Elder should not importune? The verse says (Lev. 19:32): “Elder, but you should fear your God, I am the Eternal.” According to Rebbi Joḥanan, this is understandable. According to Rebbi Eleazar one should not get up at all! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That he should not see a group of old men and pass in front of them so they should rise before him. Just as they disagree here, so they disagree about greeting.

How often does a person have to rise before an Elder? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: twice a day. Rebbi Eleazar said, once a day. Was it not stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, from where that an Elder should not importune? The verse says (Lev. 19:32): “Elder, but you should fear your God, I am the Eternal.” According to Rebbi Joḥanan, this is understandable. According to Rebbi Eleazar one should not get up at all! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That he should not see a group of old men and pass in front of them so they should rise before him. Just as they disagree here, so they disagree about greeting.

Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus and smaller people than he were ordained but he was not ordained. Simeon bar Abba was an expert in everything concerning pearls but he did not have a loaf to eat. Rebbi Joḥanan quoted about him (Eccl. 9:11): “Also bread is not for Sages.” He said, anybody who does not know the good works of Abraham may know them through the good works of this man’s ancestors. Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus when Rebbi Abbahu sent him a letter and enclosed some of his grey hair: “For these gray hairs’ sake, get up and go to the Land of Israel. Who would remove the earth from your eyes, Rebbi Joḥanan: Abbahu the shoe-clad was ordained, Simeon the toga-clad was not ordained!”

Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus and smaller people than he were ordained but he was not ordained. Simeon bar Abba was an expert in everything concerning pearls but he did not have a loaf to eat. Rebbi Joḥanan quoted about him (Eccl. 9:11): “Also bread is not for Sages.” He said, anybody who does not know the good works of Abraham may know them through the good works of this man’s ancestors. Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus when Rebbi Abbahu sent him a letter and enclosed some of his grey hair: “For these gray hairs’ sake, get up and go to the Land of Israel. Who would remove the earth from your eyes, Rebbi Joḥanan: Abbahu the shoe-clad was ordained, Simeon the toga-clad was not ordained!”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi (Yannai) in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: They asked Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, may a person sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a wife? He said to them, yes. To study Torah? Yes. For his livelihood? He did not respond. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: They asked Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, may a person sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a wife? He said to them, yes. To study Torah? Yes. For his livelihood they did not ask and he did not respond. According to Rebbi Jonah it is understandable: They did not ask, therefore he did not respond. According to Rebbi Yose, if they asked him, why did he not respond? When Rebbi Ḥanania came, Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: A person may sell to marry a wife and to study Torah, and a fortiori for his livelihood.

It was stated: If somebody vows regarding his son to study Torah, he is permitted to fill for him an amphora of water and to light for him. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He also can buy things for him on the market. Do they differ? Here for a man, there for a woman. If he was a known personality they treated him as a woman. “ It happened that somebody vowed regarding his son to study Torah. The case came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta and he permitted him to fill an amphora of water and to light for him.”

HALAKHAH: “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan understood it from the following: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door], as it was stated, “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door], as it was stated, “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door], as it was stated, “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit, he is liable because of him who carries on his back, from the following: “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable.” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so his load exited first. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold.” Is the threshold not karmelit? Rebbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit, he is liable because of him who carries on his back, from the following: “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable.” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so his load exited first. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold.” Is the threshold not karmelit? Rebbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what? Is that not a Mishnah, “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There, why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what? Is that not a Mishnah, “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There, why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody was standing in the public domain, collected rain from the airspace of walls and carried it out, he is liable. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, it is so if he grabbed it, but if he collected it he is not liable. What is the difference between whether another person gave him or if Heaven gave? It follows Rebbi, for Rebbi made the airspace of walls like their substance.

“Neither is liable.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah, the rabbis in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the category of two people performing one work. Rav asked Rebbi, if another person put a bundle on his back, when he forgot and brought it out? On the occasion of the second repetition he told him, he is liable because it does not compare to this. Rebbi is of the opinion that when he started to walk it is as if he had taken up the object. In the opinion of Rebbi, if he stood in the public domain and threw but ran and caught it in a private domain, what? But is that not Rebbi since Rebbi made the airspace enclosed by walls like its essence? It is only necessary in case he stood in the private domain and threw but ran and and caught it in a public domain, what? It was found stated: Rebbi declares him not liable until the moment it comes to rest.

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated all of these. The sea as we have stated there: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit. A valley as we have stated: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity. During the rainy season it is (private) [public] domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.” A threshold, as we have stated: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise, take either the very first or the very last [source]. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? Only in image a man wanders. It is written, many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust? That is Rebbi Zeˋira, as Rebbi Zeˋira said, we do not take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise, take either the very first or the very last [source]. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? Only in image a man wanders. It is written, many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust? That is Rebbi Zeˋira, as Rebbi Zeˋira said, we do not take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A tailor should not leave with his needle close to sundown lest he forget and leave,” etc. It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If one of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.”The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle with ear she is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

Their oil. Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it. Daniel was careful not to defile himself by the king’s repast and the wine he drank. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but some say it in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For it they were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed for it.

And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

Their semen. But did not Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, a Gentile’s semen is pure for semen cannot be discharged without urine.

And about the rules for the land of Gentiles. But did not Rebbi Zeˋira bar Abinna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Joseph ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity of the land of Gentiles and of glass vessels; Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetaḥ decreed impurity of metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed about purity of hands. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi: so practice had been in their hands but they forgot it. The secondary [authorities] came and agreed with the intent of the first ones. To teach you that everything for which the Court made a real effort will in the end be confirmed for them as it was said to Moses on Sinai. This comes as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty matter for you, if it is an empty matter, it is from you since you do not exert yourselves for it. For it is your life. When is it your life? Any time you are exerting yourselves for it.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi instituted that it should not happen. They wanted to say, they are permitted the next day. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “They House of Shammai say, one sells to a Non-Jew,” etc. What means “a nearby destination”? It should be as Samuel said, for example as from Ḥuṭra to Nahardea; here it is the same. Some want to say, until he reaches his home. But some want to say, until he reaches his town. Rebbi Aqiba says, that he leaves the place of the door when the day becomes holy around him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Yose: But Rebbi Aqiba comes to determine following the words of the House of Hillel. One does not give to a Gentile on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere. One does not give to a dog on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not give hides to the tannery worker,” etc. How long? It should come like what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Onias, the time needed to walk four miles. And here, if he gave his clothing to the Gentile fuller and found him treating them on the Sabbath, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yudan said, he should tell him not to do it. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, for goodwill. But for a fee, he looks after his work.

“They both agree,” etc. Rebbi Samuel and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, because every single drop was moved from its place. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, may one touch the flow? The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagreed; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden; Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, it is permitted. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: They both agree that one may not touch the flow.

“They both agree,” etc. Rebbi Samuel and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, because every single drop was moved from its place. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, may one touch the flow? The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagreed; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden; Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, it is permitted. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: They both agree that one may not touch the flow.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not roast meat, onions, or an egg, unless they be roasted when it still is daylight,” etc. Rebbi Bun bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis: A dish which is fully cooked one may leave on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: Meat, onion, and egg shrink and it is bad for them. This one is shrinking and it is good for it, and you say so? Maybe this was said only for hot water. Rebbi Samuel came, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: It is forbidden to leave hot water which was fully heated on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dish of beef which was cooked as Ben Derosai’s food one may return on a cooking stove covered with ashes. This comes like what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One warns somebody who puts a pot on top of coals. When it will be cooked as Ben Derosai’s food it is forbidden. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: Hot water which was fully heated one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: To leave on is forbidden but to return is permitted? Maybe it was only said for the Passover sacrifice. There Rebbi Aḥa in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: The Passover sacrifice which was fully roasted one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not roast meat, onions, or an egg, unless they be roasted when it still is daylight,” etc. Rebbi Bun bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis: A dish which is fully cooked one may leave on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: Meat, onion, and egg shrink and it is bad for them. This one is shrinking and it is good for it, and you say so? Maybe this was said only for hot water. Rebbi Samuel came, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: It is forbidden to leave hot water which was fully heated on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dish of beef which was cooked as Ben Derosai’s food one may return on a cooking stove covered with ashes. This comes like what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One warns somebody who puts a pot on top of coals. When it will be cooked as Ben Derosai’s food it is forbidden. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: Hot water which was fully heated one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: To leave on is forbidden but to return is permitted? Maybe it was only said for the Passover sacrifice. There Rebbi Aḥa in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: The Passover sacrifice which was fully roasted one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because the fire is [not] drawn after it and he forgets and removes the wick; and in addition because the fire was not kindled on most of the fuel. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, does this mean that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel? There came Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel. The colleagues objected, is there not wax where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, is there not a lantern where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah say in the name of Rav: Four pyres are in a minimal amount. A pyre of pressed-out olives, a pyre of manure, a pyre of fat, a pyre of pits are in a minimal amount. Also from the following, that Rebbi Taḥlifa asked Rav Ḥisda, did not the rabbi teach us, on a Sabbath which happened during Ḥanukkah, when it is forbidden to check a coin in the Ḥanukkah light; there he will not forget and remove the wick. Therefore the reason can only be that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because the fire is [not] drawn after it and he forgets and removes the wick; and in addition because the fire was not kindled on most of the fuel. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, does this mean that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel? There came Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel. The colleagues objected, is there not wax where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, is there not a lantern where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah say in the name of Rav: Four pyres are in a minimal amount. A pyre of pressed-out olives, a pyre of manure, a pyre of fat, a pyre of pits are in a minimal amount. Also from the following, that Rebbi Taḥlifa asked Rav Ḥisda, did not the rabbi teach us, on a Sabbath which happened during Ḥanukkah, when it is forbidden to check a coin in the Ḥanukkah light; there he will not forget and remove the wick. Therefore the reason can only be that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel.

May one light a fire under a pyre of leavened material? For him who infers it from remainder, it is forbidden. But for him who does not infer it from remainder, it is permitted. Rav Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥisda: this implies that it is permitted to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But did we not state, “one does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” because of a holiday which falls on Friday. But then one should not light oil to be burned in the night since one does not burn sancta in the night! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they followed the argument of Rebbi Ismael. Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night. Where do you have oil to be burned whose time has passed? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: Since it became impure it is as if its time had passed.

Rebbi Yose stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: From where that all those to be circumcised should only be circumcised during daytime? The verse says, And on the day. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, is that so? All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night. A woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There they say, even one whose time has passed, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of our rabbis immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

Rebbi Yose stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: From where that all those to be circumcised should only be circumcised during daytime? The verse says, And on the day. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, is that so? All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night. A woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There they say, even one whose time has passed, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of our rabbis immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

“Rebbi Tarphon says, one kindles only with olive oil.” “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri got on his feet and said, if it is so what should the people of Babylonia do who have only sesame oil? What should the people of Media do who have only nut oil? What should the people of Alexandria do who have only radish oil? What should the people of Kappadokia do who have neither one nor the other (but naphtha)? But you have only what the earlier ones permitted.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, not unless he needs the body of the wick, so Rebbi Simeon says, not unless he needs the body of the thing. How do you need the body of the wick? The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: for so the professional waiters singe in this way, as you say, and the hair on their heads was not singed. What means “singe in this way”? They singe it.

There, we have stated: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose he should be free from paying restitution, from the following: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money.

It is difficult for Bar Qappara. Setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah; they are all for a need, itself not for a need? Rebbi Yose said, if (Rebbi Eleazar) would think with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah. Rebbi Eleazar said, setting fire taught about itself. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have about one to make him liable for each single one? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, of these, to make him liable once for all of them. We understand setting fire. A wound? Its main point for a need, itself not for a need? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. One said, slaughter is the main point and a wound derivative; the other one switches.

It is difficult for Bar Qappara. Setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah; they are all for a need, itself not for a need? Rebbi Yose said, if (Rebbi Eleazar) would think with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah. Rebbi Eleazar said, setting fire taught about itself. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have about one to make him liable for each single one? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, of these, to make him liable once for all of them. We understand setting fire. A wound? Its main point for a need, itself not for a need? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. One said, slaughter is the main point and a wound derivative; the other one switches.

If one set a fire and extinguished with the same blowing he is liable twice. Rebbi Eudaimon the brother of Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if he blew at vessels and broke them, he pays full damages. He who stirs coals under a pot on the Sabbath is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, he is liable twice, once that he extinguished the upper layer and once that he set fire to the lower layer. But he who stirs coals to warm himself in front of them on the Sabbath is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is a disagreement; according to him who said that he is liable only once. But according to him who said that he is twice liable he is liable. For Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he is not twice liable but he is considered as if twice liable. Rebbi Yudan said, there he does not want that they be set on fire and he does not want that they be extinguished. But here he wants that they be set on fire and he wants that they be extinguished.

Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: it only said “on top of it.” Therefore not into it. How far? Ulla said, up three [hand breadths]. Rebbi Mana said, up to where he would make an impression. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he has mastery at a place where the hand has mastery. This comes as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand has mastery but it is forbidden at a place where the hand has no mastery.

As it was stated: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally it may not be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. When Rav was instructing his own group he said following Rebbi Meïr; in public he instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he explained to us following Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, in any case where for an intentional sin one is liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin for a purification offering, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both to him and to others. In any case where for an intentional sin one is not liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin no purification offering is due, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result unintentional it may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, what do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Rav Huna in the name of Rav, and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

As it was stated: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally it may not be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. When Rav was instructing his own group he said following Rebbi Meïr; in public he instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he explained to us following Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, in any case where for an intentional sin one is liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin for a purification offering, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both to him and to others. In any case where for an intentional sin one is not liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin no purification offering is due, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result unintentional it may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, what do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Rav Huna in the name of Rav, and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

As it was stated: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally it may not be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. When Rav was instructing his own group he said following Rebbi Meïr; in public he instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he explained to us following Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, in any case where for an intentional sin one is liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin for a purification offering, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both to him and to others. In any case where for an intentional sin one is not liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin no purification offering is due, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result unintentional it may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, what do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Rav Huna in the name of Rav, and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

As it was stated: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally it may not be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. When Rav was instructing his own group he said following Rebbi Meïr; in public he instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he explained to us following Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, in any case where for an intentional sin one is liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin for a purification offering, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both to him and to others. In any case where for an intentional sin one is not liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin no purification offering is due, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result unintentional it may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, what do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Rav Huna in the name of Rav, and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

If it was hanging from a peg, or it was put on a footstool. Should we say if it was as if on coals it is permitted and if not it is forbidden? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Rebbi Marius said, if he did not remove his hand from it. But if he removed his hand from it it is forbidden.

It was stated: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Rebbi Marius said, if he did not remove his hand from it. But if he removed it it is forbidden. An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken. Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus said, in any case he can stick in a spit or a knife and take it. This [statement] of Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.”

“From an Antiochean vessel one does not drink even if it is cleaned out.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Aḥa Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because it is heated from its walls. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If it was cleaned out and open it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One may not put cold water into a hot water container which was removed,” etc. Rebbi Abba the (son of the) son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they stated this only for a cup, therefore not into itself. Rebbi Mana said, I objected before Rebbi Abba [the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba]: Rebbi Joḥanan could not have stated this on the first part [of the Mishnah] nor on the second part! “In order to heat it”, therefore to make it lukewarm is permitted. There came Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of (Rebbi) [Rav]. If to heat it, it is forbidden, if to make it lukewarm it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One may not put cold water into a hot water container which was removed,” etc. Rebbi Abba the (son of the) son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they stated this only for a cup, therefore not into itself. Rebbi Mana said, I objected before Rebbi Abba [the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba]: Rebbi Joḥanan could not have stated this on the first part [of the Mishnah] nor on the second part! “In order to heat it”, therefore to make it lukewarm is permitted. There came Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of (Rebbi) [Rav]. If to heat it, it is forbidden, if to make it lukewarm it is permitted.

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rebbi Simeon [ben Menassia] permits.” Rav comes following Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rebbi Joḥanan following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Meïr says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rebbi Simeon [ben Menassia] permits.” Rav comes following Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rebbi Joḥanan following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Meïr says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rebbi Simeon [ben Menassia] permits.” Rav comes following Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rebbi Joḥanan following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Meïr says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put a vessel under the light to catch the oil but when he put it there when it still was daylight it is permitted. One may not use it because it is not prepared,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it burned out when it still was day but he realized it only after it was dark? The colleagues asked: If it burned out on this Sabbath but he realized it only afterwards on the Sabbath? Rebbi Joḥanan said, nothing in its natural form is not prepared except one item. Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is not oil in the lamp in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the lamp. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected: Is not seed grain in its natural form, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the ground. They objected: Are there not eggs used for chicks which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! They were put there from the start to become chicks. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: Are there not Sukkah decorations which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! There is a difference, as Rebbi Abba Mari, Rebbi Yose’s brother, said: For the seven days they become insignificant in the Sukkah. Afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Is not lint which was scattered in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food. Rebbi Nasa objected, are there not figs put out to ferment, which dried but he did not touch, in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food.

HALAKHAH: (Mishnah: “One moves a new light but not a used one;” etc.) Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Did we not state, “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down”? They said, this is the one of Rebbi Joḥanan.

Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abba, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, the words of Rebbi Meïr, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited. But the other one said, anything which one specified for something prohibited is prohibited. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi (Ḥanina) [Ḥanania] said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is this (brick) [lamp] not specifically for something forbidden? This implies that he was the one who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited. The one who said specific, so much more if he specified. But he who said if he specified, not if it is specific.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, you, what are you saying? He told them, I only have the Mishnah: “One may move any light except one which was burning on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish instructed in al-Tarabulus, it is permitted to move a small light. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rebbi Abbahu. Before Rebbi Ḥelbo they did not take away, before Rebbi Abbahu they took away. Rebbi Yasa visited Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya. He wanted to remove it before him. He told him, before us? Rebbi Yose the Galilean came before Yose ben Ḥanina; he wanted to take it away, he told him, who permitted you? It is found Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan, who forbid, are one. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who permit, are one. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina: It happened and they moved a metal lamp instead of a pottery light on the Sabbath. Where do we hold? If following Rebbi Meїr, even the metal lamp should be forbidden. If following Rebbi Simeon, even a pottery light should be permitted. But we are following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah is the one who said, a pottery light is disgusting, a metal light is not disgusting.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, you, what are you saying? He told them, I only have the Mishnah: “One may move any light except one which was burning on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish instructed in al-Tarabulus, it is permitted to move a small light. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rebbi Abbahu. Before Rebbi Ḥelbo they did not take away, before Rebbi Abbahu they took away. Rebbi Yasa visited Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya. He wanted to remove it before him. He told him, before us? Rebbi Yose the Galilean came before Yose ben Ḥanina; he wanted to take it away, he told him, who permitted you? It is found Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan, who forbid, are one. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who permit, are one. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina: It happened and they moved a metal lamp instead of a pottery light on the Sabbath. Where do we hold? If following Rebbi Meїr, even the metal lamp should be forbidden. If following Rebbi Simeon, even a pottery light should be permitted. But we are following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah is the one who said, a pottery light is disgusting, a metal light is not disgusting.

It was stated: If a light was lying on a table he takes away the table and the light falls down. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one is close to be liable for a purification sacrifice; forwards for setting a fire, backwards for extinguishing. Samuel bar Abba before Rebbi Yasa: when it was extinguished. He told him, may your mind be at rest. Where do we hold? If following Rebbi Meïr, even the table should be forbidden. If following Rebbi Simeon, even the light should be permitted. But here following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says, a pottery light is disgusting, a table is not disgusting.

Rebbi Abba bat Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is forbidden to move a tarkos. Rebbi Immi instructed: it is permitted. Rebbi Jeremiah saw them moving it at the great assembly and did not object to them. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, up to three it is a chair, more than this a ladder. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who permits follows Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Since you are saying, it is permitted to move it, similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any vessel except a carriage because it presses.”

Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi: It was said relating to the Sabbath. Ḥizqiah in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, it was said relating to presumptions. Rebbi Yose in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, it was said relating to impurity. Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinnena, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is permitted to move a small light. Is it not a vessel? Is not everything in the house prepared? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that he took it with him as merchandise, or it arrived Friday evening at nightfall, and you cannot infer anything.

Not only if they are wet but even if they were dry and became wet, as these fibers; are these not like dry which became wet? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Shila: This implies that one who hides a cauldron must let it be missing a little lest he take it up and it spills and heats. There, we stated: “The same holds for new olive cake but old one is pure.” What is new and what is old? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: New within 12 months, old after 12 months.

Not only if they are wet but even if they were dry and became wet, as these fibers; are these not like dry which became wet? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Shila: This implies that one who hides a cauldron must let it be missing a little lest he take it up and it spills and heats. There, we stated: “The same holds for new olive cake but old one is pure.” What is new and what is old? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: New within 12 months, old after 12 months.

HALAKHAH: “One may store away in raw hides, which one may move.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This you are saying if they are kept in the household. But if they are kept in storage this does not apply. “And in wool flakes, which one may not move.” Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Joḥanan: This you are saying if they are kept in storage. But if they are kept in the household this does not apply.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A man never should refrain from going to the House of Study; since in Jabneh this question was asked many times, why is a Jordan skiff impure? Nobody answered anything until Rebbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos came and explained it in his city: Why is a Jordan skiff impure? Because one fills it with produce and transports it from dry land to the sea and from the sea to dry land. In addition he explained that palm branches which one cut both for lying down and for tents need tying. They objected, are there not the infrequent ones of Askalon? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, there is a difference since part of them are in the sea and part of them on dry land.

The statement of Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana follows Rebbi Ḥanina, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, we were ascending with Rebbi to the Hot Springs of Gadara when he said to us, choose yourselves smooth stones; then you are permitted to move them tomorrow. Rebbi Zeˋira said, only if he chiseled. The colleagues say, only if he polished. The Sepphoreans say, only if he intends. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it falls under the designation of implement. You might say that Rav Ḥana bar Abba, and Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Jonathan are one [opinion]. Rav, and Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose are one [opinion]. The Sepphoreans, and Rebbi Yose ben Shaul, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul are one [opinion]. The collegues have no pairing.

The statement of Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana follows Rebbi Ḥanina, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, we were ascending with Rebbi to the Hot Springs of Gadara when he said to us, choose yourselves smooth stones; then you are permitted to move them tomorrow. Rebbi Zeˋira said, only if he chiseled. The colleagues say, only if he polished. The Sepphoreans say, only if he intends. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it falls under the designation of implement. You might say that Rav Ḥana bar Abba, and Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Jonathan are one [opinion]. Rav, and Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose are one [opinion]. The Sepphoreans, and Rebbi Yose ben Shaul, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul are one [opinion]. The collegues have no pairing.

“Rebbi Jehudah says goats may go out tied to dry but not for milk.” It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, whether to dry or for milk is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says it correctly; but what is the rabbi’s reasoning? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Joḥanan bends it in the name of Rav: Practice follows him who said, whether to dry or for milk is forbidden, for who dissolves?

It was stated: A hand-breadth from his hand to the animal’s neck is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, from his hand is forbidden and from his animal’s neck is forbidden! A hand-breadth from his hand to the animal’s neck is forbidden, what is it that is permitted? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, one who wants to do it right should lead it like a Saracen horse.

Cahana asked Rav, may one go out with twisted chains? He told them, does one say, it is forbidden for a man to go out with his belt? Rav Huna instructed the wife of the Head of the Diaspora to put golden felt on the wig. Rebbi Joḥanan instructed these of the House of Con to put a patch with pearls on the jacket. Rebbi Ila said, anything connected to a garment is like the garment. And we have stated, one may go out with bells on his garment but one may not go out with bells around his neck. There are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are subject to impurity, and there are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are not subject to impurity. He who said, in both cases they are subject to impurity, if he made clappers for them, but he who said, in both cases they are not subject to impurity, if he did not make clappers for them. Even if he did make clappers for them they should be pure! Did not Rebbi Abbahu, Simeon bar Abba say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Bells on a crib. Two Amoraim. One said he can move it to and fro, only he should make no sound. But the other said, if he made a sound it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. There, although they are not made for sound on the Sabbath they are made for sound on weekdays; but here if they are not made for sound either on the Sabbath or weekdays, why did he make clappers for them?

Cahana asked Rav, may one go out with twisted chains? He told them, does one say, it is forbidden for a man to go out with his belt? Rav Huna instructed the wife of the Head of the Diaspora to put golden felt on the wig. Rebbi Joḥanan instructed these of the House of Con to put a patch with pearls on the jacket. Rebbi Ila said, anything connected to a garment is like the garment. And we have stated, one may go out with bells on his garment but one may not go out with bells around his neck. There are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are subject to impurity, and there are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are not subject to impurity. He who said, in both cases they are subject to impurity, if he made clappers for them, but he who said, in both cases they are not subject to impurity, if he did not make clappers for them. Even if he did make clappers for them they should be pure! Did not Rebbi Abbahu, Simeon bar Abba say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Bells on a crib. Two Amoraim. One said he can move it to and fro, only he should make no sound. But the other said, if he made a sound it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. There, although they are not made for sound on the Sabbath they are made for sound on weekdays; but here if they are not made for sound either on the Sabbath or weekdays, why did he make clappers for them?

One may not look into a mirror on the Sabbath. If it was fixed on a wall, Rebbi permits and the Sages prohibit. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: The reason of him who forbids that occasionally she will see a white hair and tear it out which brings her to the obligation of a purification sacrifice. But for a man it is forbidden also on weekdays because it is not honorable. Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter because it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said, because he wants to teach his daughters he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abbahu heard this and said, it should come over me if I did not hear this from Rebbi Joḥanan.

One may not look into a mirror on the Sabbath. If it was fixed on a wall, Rebbi permits and the Sages prohibit. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: The reason of him who forbids that occasionally she will see a white hair and tear it out which brings her to the obligation of a purification sacrifice. But for a man it is forbidden also on weekdays because it is not honorable. Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter because it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said, because he wants to teach his daughters he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abbahu heard this and said, it should come over me if I did not hear this from Rebbi Joḥanan.

One may not look into a mirror on the Sabbath. If it was fixed on a wall, Rebbi permits and the Sages prohibit. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: The reason of him who forbids that occasionally she will see a white hair and tear it out which brings her to the obligation of a purification sacrifice. But for a man it is forbidden also on weekdays because it is not honorable. Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter because it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said, because he wants to teach his daughters he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abbahu heard this and said, it should come over me if I did not hear this from Rebbi Joḥanan.

How many nails should it have? Rebbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥanina said seven, corresponding to your days are your steps. The rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Ḥanina. Rebbi Aḥa explained following Rebbi Ḥanina: nine. Rebbi put thirteen on one [shoe] and eleven on the other, for the number of watches. And like planted nails, since the watches are 24, so the nails 24. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: may one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may oil them or dip them in water. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. Rebbi was asked and said, one does not scrape. Rebbi Zeˋira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina follow him who said he scrapes but only with the back of a knife. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rebbi and were oiling and rinsing, but not scraping. Nobody should anoint his foot in a boot or his foot in a sandal but he may oil his foot and step into his boot or oil his foot and step into his sandal. One may oil himself and roll on a new tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it.

How many nails should it have? Rebbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥanina said seven, corresponding to your days are your steps. The rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Ḥanina. Rebbi Aḥa explained following Rebbi Ḥanina: nine. Rebbi put thirteen on one [shoe] and eleven on the other, for the number of watches. And like planted nails, since the watches are 24, so the nails 24. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: may one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may oil them or dip them in water. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. Rebbi was asked and said, one does not scrape. Rebbi Zeˋira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina follow him who said he scrapes but only with the back of a knife. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rebbi and were oiling and rinsing, but not scraping. Nobody should anoint his foot in a boot or his foot in a sandal but he may oil his foot and step into his boot or oil his foot and step into his sandal. One may oil himself and roll on a new tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it.