anan

One asks about practices of Passover at Passover, practices of Pentecost at Pentecost, practices of Tabernacles at Tabernacles. In the House of Assembly one asks thirty days in advance; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, two weeks. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan follows the rabbis, that of the colleagues Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the rabbis, because Moses stands on the First Passover and explains to them the rules of Second Passover. That of the colleagues follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, because Moses stands on the day of the New Moon and explains to them the rules of Passover.

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

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah, corresponding to the three times that in the Torah is written, leavening shall not be seen as yours. But is it not written, you shall remove leavening from your houses? That is a positive commandment. But is it not written, for seven days leavening shall not be found in your houses? Rebbi Yose said, since they are mutually needed, they are as one. It should not be seen as yours, I would have said, if somebody deposited with him it should be permitted. The verse says, it shall not be found in your houses. If it shall not be found in your houses, if he gave him a separate place it should be forbidden. The verse says, it shall not be seen as yours. How is this? If he deposited with him it is forbidden; if he gave him a separate place it is permitted.

Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: He who preliminarily marries with leavened matter starting from the sixth hour did not do anything. Rebbi Huna said, this is correct. Would Cordovanian wheat in the desert be any good on the holiday? A person deposited a double sack of bread with the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he was Joḥanan from Ḥiqoq. He went and asked Rebbi who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination. A person deposited a jar of kutaḥ with Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi. He went and asked Rav who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination. What is the time of elimination? Rebbi Jeremiah said, in the morning. Rebbi Aḥa said, the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Did they not say to touch them in order to sell them only to return a lost article to its owner? In the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah it is not worth anything.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, it seems that practice has to follow Rabban Gamliel since he says it similar to both of them There came Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: practice follows Rabban Gamliel since what he says is similar to both of them.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are word of the Torah. In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, original impurity induces first degree derivative. Derivative impurity induces second degree derivative. Second degree impurity which touched first degree one remains in its place, second degree, since third degree which touches first degree becomes second degree.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are word of the Torah. In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, original impurity induces first degree derivative. Derivative impurity induces second degree derivative. Second degree impurity which touched first degree one remains in its place, second degree, since third degree which touches first degree becomes second degree.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

HALAKHAH: 7: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together].

HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together].

HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together].

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

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

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

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

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

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, the second following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you are saying. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose and one should burn. In addition, we understand from the following: we see the rabbis, if a case comes before them, they say, go and suspend. Where do we find that Rebbi Simeon says, one burns? It is what we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon stated this. If you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension, have we not stated: “Suspended (pure) heave is burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, explain it that it is suspended because he does not intend to ask about it. He said to him, so also said Rebbi Yose: All we are occupied with here is with suspended [heave] about which he does not intend to ask; but suspended [heave] about which he intends to ask is pure. It was stated thus: “Suspended heave about which they said, is it pure? It is impure. If he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about it, it is pure.” What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then one cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals. He told him, after it was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals. He told him, after it was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, both of them explain the same verse: Perfect itshall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it. Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing from a stoned ox or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said: Lest it be sanctified, lest fire should be kindled. For ˋorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written, a prohibition to eat is written, [“do not eat”], a prohibition to remove it is not written.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said: the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, its meat shall not be eaten? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said: the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, its meat shall not be eaten? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, here in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, there in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating. The paradigm for all cases is: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating. The paradigm for all cases is: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. Sour bread shall not be eaten, to make the feeder equal to the eater. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan .

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.

There, we have stated: “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

There, we have stated: “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

There, we have stated: “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog..” How far? Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Up to three hand-breadths.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover, to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover, to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover, to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened matter, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir.The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If it could be scraped off together. So far moist; dry? Since if it were moist it could be scraped together, even if dry the same applies.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Cooled dough. If there was not other dough like it, how long? Rebbi Jacon bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla of Caesarea: Up to four mil’s walk.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq parallels Rabban Gamliel. Just as Rabban Gamliel (said) distinguishes between profane and heave, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq (said) distinguishes between profane and heave. Since you say that practice follows Rabban Gamliel, similarly practice has to follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”? He said to him, in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”? He said to him, in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.

One understands “one goes from a place where he works to one where he does not work.” “From a place where he does not work to one where he works,” why should he not be idle? Are there not may idlers at that place? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he causes to wonder.

HALAKHAH: Therefore, the day is forbidden. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “A day of Pesaḥ it is for the Eternal.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Two students formulated it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, I found to say that they are three. One said, it is forbidden, another said, it is permitted, and another said it is a matter of usage.

“How did they permit sycamore figs of dedicated trees? The Sages said to them, do you not agree with us that growth of dedicated [plants] is forbidden? They told them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of the strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated the tree stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder if somebody dedicates an orchard, may he reserve the growth for himself? Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? This is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated: “It somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple, it is exempt from single berries, and from ˋoriah, and from the Fourth Year, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal. The sanctity of the Sabbatical falls even on anything that is the Eternal’s.

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

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

Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed over it and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. There is a difference, since every single freestanding vine is a separate planting.

Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed over it and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. There is a difference, since every single freestanding vine is a separate planting.

It was stated: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights.” There are Tannaim who state: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the incense, and the incense the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the trimming of the lights, so that the libations of the daily sacrifice should be accompanying it.” There is nothing preceding the daily morning sacrifice and nothing later than the daily evening sacrifice except Pesaḥ and incense on Passover Eve. “ From where that nothing should precede the daily morning sacrifice? The verse says, on it ˋolah. And from where that nothing should invalidate the daily evening sacrifice? The verse says, on it šelamim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is not written here he arranges on it ˋolah but he arranges on it the ˋolah, that no elevation offering precede the daily morning sacrifice. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, people lacking expiation bring their expiatory sacrifices after the daily evening sacrifice to enable them to immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening. Rebbi Yudan said, that is, for a rich sufferer from skin disease. But a poor sufferer from skin disease, does he not bring a bird? Said Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon, does he not bring a reparation sacrifice?

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.

What results from the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, switching on the other days of the year. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose, on the other days of the year. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is qualified; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is disqualified.

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: From where that he needs to slaughter for those who will eat it? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: For each man according to his eating you shall cut. Rebbi Josia said, it is a Syriac expresssion, as if a person say to his neighbor, slaughter for me this lamb.

There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive.

There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard. Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt, it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard. Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt, it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard. Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt, it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”, and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing. If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering. But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified. There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed. “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time, or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time, Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ.” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing. If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering. But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified. There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed. “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time, or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time, Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ.” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing. If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering. But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified. There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed. “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time, or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time, Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ.” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed.

Explanation. Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Abinna were sitting. Rebbi Abinna said, because of the tricksters. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, a mouthful. Rebbi Zeˋira said to him, say it with half a mouthful. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : because of the tricksters.

HALAKHAH: One verse says, but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says, and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be, etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?

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

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

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah declares liable for squeezed blood.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “They said to him, is that not squeezed blood? And squeezed blood is disqualified on the altar. And also from the following, most of it was not received in a vessel, and blood not received in a vessel is disqualified on the altar.” Does Rebbi Jehudah hold that blood invalidates blood? Since he did not reply, it follows that he accepted their position. Since in the other case he does not hold so but did not respond, so here he does not hold so but did not respond. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “Not only life blood for sancta, matter appropriate for atonement, from where life blood for profane animals and squeezed blood for both sancta and profane animals? The verse says blood and all blood. When it is about life it mentions atonement, for squeezed blood it does not mention atonement.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah declares liable for squeezed blood.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “They said to him, is that not squeezed blood? And squeezed blood is disqualified on the altar. And also from the following, most of it was not received in a vessel, and blood not received in a vessel is disqualified on the altar.” Does Rebbi Jehudah hold that blood invalidates blood? Since he did not reply, it follows that he accepted their position. Since in the other case he does not hold so but did not respond, so here he does not hold so but did not respond. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “Not only life blood for sancta, matter appropriate for atonement, from where life blood for profane animals and squeezed blood for both sancta and profane animals? The verse says blood and all blood. When it is about life it mentions atonement, for squeezed blood it does not mention atonement.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi Yose said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi Yose said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi Yose said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

There, we have stated: “What is ‘far away’? From Modiin and farther away, and in the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, from the doorstep of the Temple courtyard and farther away.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only not to make him liable for extirpation. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah implies this: “Rebbi Aqiba answered him, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment.” Is it a commandment to sprinkle? Explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Fourteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he his prevented from fulfilling the commandment. Rav Hoshaia said, explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Thirteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then the next day he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he is prevented from fulfilling the commandment. It was found stated following the first [explanation].

“Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. You understand from here two things. You understand something which has no fixed number, or that is apt to being changed, only if the act is meritorious. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if the act is meritorious, for example his sister-in-law which is menstruating and he slept with her. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the act is [not] meritorious, for example two spits, one with slaughtered meat, the other with carcass meat, and he intended to eat from one but ate from the other. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.” In this case the act is not meritorious and Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Samuel from Cappadocia said, the next day it is meritorious.

“Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. You understand from here two things. You understand something which has no fixed number, or that is apt to being changed, only if the act is meritorious. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if the act is meritorious, for example his sister-in-law which is menstruating and he slept with her. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the act is [not] meritorious, for example two spits, one with slaughtered meat, the other with carcass meat, and he intended to eat from one but ate from the other. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.” In this case the act is not meritorious and Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Samuel from Cappadocia said, the next day it is meritorious.

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