anan

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. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] 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 they 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 Illa 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. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] 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 they 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 Illa 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. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] 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 they 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 Illa 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.

Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since bread cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy; it should be given to the gift account. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as gift. Rebbi Eleazar: the leftover of his tenth of an ephah: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given to the gift account..

Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba when Rebbi Eliezer saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things the Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he hides himself. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said to him, thus they behave among themselves; Rebbi Ze`ira did not greet Rabba since they observe Boys see me and hide themselves; elders rise and stand. He asked him, may one pass by a cursed statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eliezer did well that he did not pass before you. The other thing the Babylonian does, that he does not mention my tradition in my name. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Assi came to him. They said to him, Rabbi, so it happened that it was a synagogue of weavers, about a bolt topped by a lock about which Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose disagreed until they tore a Torah scroll in their rage. Would you think that they tore a Torah scroll? But that a Torah scroll was torn. There was an old man there, Rebbi Yose ben Qisma, who said, I wonder whether this synagogue will not be a place of foreign worship. He came back and asked, where is the colleague? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi came and said to him, it is written, all that the Eternal commanded to His servant Moses so Joshua commanded. When Joshua explained, did he mention every time “so said Moses”? No, he explained and they knew that it was Moses’s teaching. So also Eleazar sits and explains and everybody knows that it is your teaching. He said to them, why do you not know to pacify like our colleague Ben Idi?

Why did Rebbi Joḥanan insist to require that traditions should be reported in his name? For also David begged for divine mercy in this respect, as it says, may I dwell in Your tent forever, I shall seek shelter under the cover of Your wings, Selah. Could David think of living forever? Rather, David said before the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of the World, may I have the merit that my words will be mentioned in synagogues and houses of study. What good does that do to him? Simeon, the son of the Nazir said in the name of Rebbi Isaac If a Sage’s pronouncement in matters of practice is mentioned in this world, the latter’s lips whisper with him in the grave for it is said, dripping from the lips of the sleeping ones. Like that softened bunch of grapes, if a person puts his finger on it immediately it drips, so also the lips of the just drip, for if one mentions their pronouncements in matters of practice the latter’s lips whisper in the grave. What good does that do to them? The son of the Nazir says, like one who drinks spiced wine; Rebbi Isaac said, like one who drinks old wine, even though he cannot taste it.

Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said, only in image a man wanders. It is written many a man professes good will, this is the rest of mankind; but where will you find one you can trust, that is Rebbi Ze`ira. As Rebbi Ze`ira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are the periods of birth. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: That animals be available for the pilgrims on the holidays. Rebbi Yudan said, that he should not come to do not tarry. Rebbi Yose said, anybody who is late with his ṭevel transgresses. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. Could Ben Azzai decide between his students? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “you come to find us disagreement”?

A cup mixed by how much? Rebbi Yose bar Bevin said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, let us hear from the following: “Water. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” This implies mixed as cups are mixed. What is the measure of cups? Rebbi Abun said, τέταρτρον is a quarter.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Meïr said, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he heard Hallel in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink to feel differently, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, he will not become drunk. May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color, when put in our cup. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles.

Rebbi Abbahu descended to Tiberias. The students of Rebbi Joḥanan saw that his face was shiny. They said before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Abbahu found a treasure. He came to him. He asked him, what new teaching did you hear? He said, an old Tosephta. He recited about him, a man’s wisdom illuminates his face.

Rebbi Abbahu descended to Tiberias. The students of Rebbi Joḥanan saw that his face was shiny. They said before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Abbahu found a treasure. He came to him. He asked him, what new teaching did you hear? He said, an old Tosephta. He recited about him, a man’s wisdom illuminates his face.

Rebbi Ḥanan said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Shammai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he call it the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged. But some are saying, it was diminished more than before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Bevin in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Bevin in the name of Samuel: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Ḥanan said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Shammai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he call it the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged. But some are saying, it was diminished more than before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Bevin in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Bevin in the name of Samuel: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not take notice of him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Beva was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna asked him, is it pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqa asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, I was unfriendly to him, as Rebbi Ḥanan said, your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.” What means pure? It is pure in the flesh, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this,” in the amount needed that its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Yose said, two Amoraim disagree, one says impure, and one says pure. He who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he of “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Abuha of Iman the sister of Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.]

It is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce is the gain of the Temple; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated, “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”

It is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce is the gain of the Temple; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated, “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”

HALAKHAH: Would not Temple property be redeemed by Temple property? What does he do? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, he brings coins and redeems them for the building; brings incense and redeems it for them, and gives it to the artisans as their wages. What should be done with those coins? Rebbi says, I am saying that they should be given to the family Garmu and the family Eutinos who were experts in compounding the incense and in making the shew-bread. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav <isaac< said, only if they were due to them beforehand. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, what if they were not due beforehand? There came Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One uses them to adorn the altar. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba seems inverted. Here it is questionable for him; there it is obvious for him. He told him, where it is questionable for him, for Service vessels; where it is obvious for him, to adorn the altar.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for any public sacrifices.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. What is Ben Azzai’s reason? For Temple property cannot be redeemed by work, only by coins.

There we have stated: “There is about gifts for the upkeep of the Temple that unspecified gifts to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple. Sanctification for the upkeep of the Temple falls on everything, and me`ilah applies to what grows from it, and priests have no usufruct from it.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer : If a man dedicate his house holy to the Eternal. How do we hold? If for a dwelling, it already is written, if the dedicator redeem his house. Therefore we hold that he dedicates his property. From here that unspecified dedications to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They disagree about one who gives his property to the Temple. But if he gives his flock to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the altar. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Where do they disagree? About one who gives his flock to the Temple, but if he gave his property to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the upkeep of the Temple. The opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira can be understood. It is difficult for Rebbi Abba. Is an animal not for the altar? An animal is for the altar. But why did this man not specify? It is as if he said, it only should be for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference. The disagreement is both about one who gives his property to the Temple as about one who gives his flock to the Temple.

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. A Mishnah says so, “their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it if they were redeemed unblemished and then became defective. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Does the Mishnah say so? “Their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Yose: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. If you are saying they did not become profane, how could the sanctity of the altar fall on sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple?

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

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

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

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird. And here, he says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.

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

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

MISHNAH: These are the appointees who were in the Sanctuary: Joḥanan ben Phineas of the seals, Aḥiyya of the libations, Mathew ben Samuel of the lotteries, Petaḥiah of the nests. Petaḥiah is Mordecai. Why was he called Petaḥiah? For he had original ideas and explained them, and he knew seventy languages. Ben Aḥiyyah for indigestion; Onias the digger of ditches, Gabinius the herald, Ben Gever for locking the doors, Ben Bevai for the oakum. Ben Arza for the cymbal, Hugdas ben Levi for the song. The family Garmu for the shew-bread, the family Eutinos for producing the incense. Eleazar for the gobelins, and Phineas the clothier.

Rebbi Yose said, I found a child of the family Eutinos. I said to him, my son, from which family are you? he told me, from family X. I said to him, my son, because your forefathers intended to increase their prestige and to decrease Heaven’s prestige, therefore their prestige was diminished and Heaven’s prestige increased. Rebbi Aqiba said, Simeon ben Lagos told me, I was collecting herbs, I and a youth from the family Eutinos, when I saw him crying and laughing. I said to him, my son, why did you cry? He said to me, about the prestige of my family which is diminished. And why did you laugh? About the glory prepared for the Just in the future world. [What did you see?] There is smoke-creating herb before me! I said to him, my son, show it to me. He answered me, I have a tradition from my ancestors not to show it to any creature.’ Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, I met an old man from the family Eutinos [who held a scroll about chemicals.]. He said to me, ‘Rabbi. In the past my family were humble, and transmitting this scroll one to the other. But now they are not trustworthy; here the scroll is yours and take care of it.’ When I came and repeated these words before Rebbi Aqiba, his tears flowed and he said, from now on we do not have to mention them for shame.

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: The first born Joḥanan, the first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekiah. But is it not written, the third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum? Sedekiah, the third in birth, the fourth in kingdom. Sedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed his name into Sedekiah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: The first born Joḥanan, the first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekiah. But is it not written, the third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum? Sedekiah, the third in birth, the fourth in kingdom. Sedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed his name into Sedekiah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: The first born Joḥanan, the first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekiah. But is it not written, the third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum? Sedekiah, the third in birth, the fourth in kingdom. Sedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed his name into Sedekiah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: The first born Joḥanan, the first in kingdom. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Shallum is Sedekiah. But is it not written, the third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum? Sedekiah, the third in birth, the fourth in kingdom. Sedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead and changed his name into Sedekiah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Ark was made with a cubit of six hand-breadths. Who stated “a cubit of six hand-breadths“? This is Rebbi Meןr’s. [As we have stated: “Rebbi Meןr says, all cubits were of buildings; Rebbi Jehudah says, the cubit of buildings six, of vessels five.”] According to Rebbi Meןr who says that the Ark was made with a cubit of six hand-breadths, the length of the Ark was fifteen cubits, as it is written: Its length two cubits and a half. Each cubit was six and half a cubit three. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones, as it is written: Which you broke and put into the Ark. Each of the tablets was six hand-breadths in length and three in width. Put the widths of the tablets in the length of the Ark, there were three hand-breadths left. Apply them to the cylinder. [On each side half a hand-breadth to have a handle, and two hand-breadths as place to put there the Torah scroll.] The width of the Ark was nine hand-breadths, as it is written: A cubit and half a cubit. A cubit six and half a cubit three. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones. Each of the tablets was six hand-breadths in length and three in width. Put the lengths of the tablets in the length of the Ark, there were three hand-breadths left. On each side half a hand-breadth to have a handle, and two hand-breadths as a place to put there the Torah scroll.

It is written, on the banks of the river on both sides all kinds of fruit tree will grow; its leaf shall not wilt, and its fruit not stop; in its months it shall produce first fruits. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in the present world grain grows in six months and trees produce every twelve months, but in the future grain will grow in a month and trees will produce in two months. Rebbi Yose said, in the present world grain grows in six months and trees produce every twelve months, but in the future grain will grow in fifteen days and trees will produce in a month, for so we find that grain grew in the days of Joel in fifteen days, and the ‘Omer was brought from it. What is the reason? The people of Zion shall enjoy and be happy in the Eternal, your God, for He in truth gave you strong rain, early rain and late rain in the first {month}. How does Rebbi Yose satisfy in its months it shall produce first fruits? Every month it shall produce first fruits. And its leaf as medicine. Rebbi Joḥanan said, its healing is that one looks at it and food is turned into medicine. Rav and Samuel, one says, to open the upper mouth, but the other one says, to open the lower mouth. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one says, to open the mouth of sterile women, but the other one says, to open the mouth of the dumb.

HALAKHAH: It was stated, “on the silver one”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac; Rebbi Ḥananiah brought it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There was none of silver because it heats. But did we not state, this is one of the wonders which happened in the Temple, that just as they were putting it down hot, so they were removing it hot, [as it is written], to put hot bread as on the day it was removed. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, one does not mention wonders. They asked before Rebbi Ila: If they did not have bread, may they leave it for the coming week? He said to them, it is written: you shall put on the table the shew-bread before Me permanently. The shew-bread, even disqualified.

“Six for voluntary gifts.” Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the six clans. Bar Pedaiah said, corresponding to seven animals: bull, and calf, and he-goat, ram, and lamb, and kid goat. Samuel said, corresponding to six sacrifices: the nests of the sufferer from gonorrhea, the nests of the sufferer from flux, the nests of the new mother, purification sacrifices, and reparation sacrifices, flour offerings, and the Tenth of an Ephah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because the gifts were many, they added many horns for it. [As it is said], when they were finished they brought before the king and Jehoyada etc. Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan [said], two voluntary gifts. Rebbi Ismael stated, one gift. But is it not written, the king commanded and they made a chest and put it at the outside of the gate of the Eternal’s House. Rav Ḥuna said, because of those impure. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Joseph: Because of but silver cups would not be made in the Eternal’s House. Things similar to silver cups would not be made in the Eternal’s House.

HALAKHAH: “Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts,” etc. It would only be necessary between sheqalim and nests! They were arranged like a snail. Would it not be necessary that it be given to sheqalim? Some want to say, maybe they would remain with the excess of the lodge. Some want to say, in the middle it is as if he died. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to the gift account. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to the gift account.

HALAKHAH: Would it not be necessarily holy on the Temple Mount? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is a presumption that no Cohen will remove money from the lodge unless it is redeemed by an animal.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Mana. He saw an Aramean cutting from his horse and feeding his son. He said to him, that is what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare. He answered him, so said the great Rebbi Yose: Only if they saw him leaving a Jewish butcher shop. A man in Sepphoris went and wanted to buy red meat from a butcher, but he did not give to him. He told a Roman, who brought him. He said to him, did I not buy against your will? He retorted, did I not give carrion to him? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi who said, it is not believable to forbid the butcher shop of Sepphoris.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Mana. He saw an Aramean cutting from his horse and feeding his son. He said to him, that is what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare. He answered him, so said the great Rebbi Yose: Only if they saw him leaving a Jewish butcher shop. A man in Sepphoris went and wanted to buy red meat from a butcher, but he did not give to him. He told a Roman, who brought him. He said to him, did I not buy against your will? He retorted, did I not give carrion to him? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi who said, it is not believable to forbid the butcher shop of Sepphoris.

HALAKHAH: The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said (more)<to his son>` this was taught for their monetary value. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices? But they followed the majority of cases: If most are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings, so it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse.

Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift.

The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,] he splits it and then dedicates. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.

The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,] he splits it and then dedicates. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, the system of Rebbi Simeon seems inverted. There he says, from the heirs, but here he says, from the public. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, is that not a pertinent question? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is a word from the Torah that it should be brought from the public. I could say, one should tax for it; they instituted that it should come from what is taken from the lodge.

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Entire in the morning and entire in the evening, or half in the morning and half in the evening, [or entire in the morning and nothing in the evening]? Then it should be obvious to him, what about three log? Three log in the morning and three log in the afternoon, or a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half in the afternoon? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, also the following was a problem for him: Two handful in the morning and two handful in the evening or one handful in the morning and one handful in the evening? Rebbi Yose said, did they not the two handful infer from the sinner’s flour offering? Just as there two handful, also here two handful. Just as there it was problematic for him, so here it is problematic for him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, did one not infer the three log from the daily afternoon sacrifice? Since there {are} three log, so also here three log. [Just as] there it was problematic for him, [so] here it is (obvious) [problematic] for him.

But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they did not decide about vessels in Jerusalem? Since they were found on the road descending to the place of immersion, it is proof.

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 words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

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 words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

Which of the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Moon has precedence? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the New Month have precedence. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: Between the song of the Sabbath and the song of the New Month, the song of the New Month has precedence. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference there since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To make a proclamation to publicize that it is the start of a new month. How does one do it? One slaughters the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and says for them the song of the New Month. But here, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath have precedence, under the category: what is more frequent than another precedes the other.

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the roof as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they are not comparable. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed poles are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing it is disqualified.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shade it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed. We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there, “if the thatching was three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” But a house is completely enclosed, a sukkah is not completely enclosed. If a porch was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of] Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. Up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the thatching; from twenty cubits and higher he sits in the shade of the walls. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if you are saying, if it is put higher than twenty cubits on the walls. But if it was put lower than twenty cubits inside the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said to him, in your opinion, since you are saying that it is depending on the walls, it should state that “a sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits on the walls is disqualified.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table. But if it holds more it is qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia, only if its walls do not reach up all the way, but if its walls reach up all the way it is qualified. But does not a baraita disagree? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena in Lydda was higher than twenty cubits and the Sages were coming and going there and nobody was saying a word. They said to him, because she was a woman, and a woman is not obligated. He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons?” Could you say that the sukkah of Queen Helena only held a person’s head, most of his body, and his table? But it must be that the walls do not reach up all the way. What Rebbi Josia said is reasonable and the baraita does not disagree, since it is the way of rich people to make their walls airy so that cool air may enter.

Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed. We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there, “if the thatching was three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” But a house is completely enclosed, a sukkah is not completely enclosed. If a porch was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of] Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. Up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the thatching; from twenty cubits and higher he sits in the shade of the walls. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if you are saying, if it is put higher than twenty cubits on the walls. But if it was put lower than twenty cubits inside the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said to him, in your opinion, since you are saying that it is depending on the walls, it should state that “a sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits on the walls is disqualified.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table. But if it holds more it is qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia, only if its walls do not reach up all the way, but if its walls reach up all the way it is qualified. But does not a baraita disagree? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena in Lydda was higher than twenty cubits and the Sages were coming and going there and nobody was saying a word. They said to him, because she was a woman, and a woman is not obligated. He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons?” Could you say that the sukkah of Queen Helena only held a person’s head, most of his body, and his table? But it must be that the walls do not reach up all the way. What Rebbi Josia said is reasonable and the baraita does not disagree, since it is the way of rich people to make their walls airy so that cool air may enter.

And it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. Rav Hoshaia asked, what if the one hand-breadth one is put in the middle? He came back and asked, if one of the four hand-breadths ones was put in the middle, how is it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Such a case came before Rebbi Yasa and he qualified it. And it was stated thus: “If a courtyard is enclosed by pillars, the pillars are like walls.” Does not a baraita disagree? If they are made according to the rules they are qualified, not according to the rules disqualified. They wanted to say, in the middle. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if these are not opposite those. Rav said, that one of one hand-breadth must be removed from the wall by one hand-breadth. Samuel said, even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one follows this one, the other one the other. Cahana and Assi came and asked before Rav following that of Samuel. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if it is within three hand-breadths like a lathe.

And it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. Rav Hoshaia asked, what if the one hand-breadth one is put in the middle? He came back and asked, if one of the four hand-breadths ones was put in the middle, how is it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Such a case came before Rebbi Yasa and he qualified it. And it was stated thus: “If a courtyard is enclosed by pillars, the pillars are like walls.” Does not a baraita disagree? If they are made according to the rules they are qualified, not according to the rules disqualified. They wanted to say, in the middle. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if these are not opposite those. Rav said, that one of one hand-breadth must be removed from the wall by one hand-breadth. Samuel said, even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one follows this one, the other one the other. Cahana and Assi came and asked before Rav following that of Samuel. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if it is within three hand-breadths like a lathe.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called Bet Rata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called Bet Rata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called Bet Rata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

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

Concerning the Sabbath, everything less than three {hand-breadths} is considered closed. From three to four, and from four {hand-breadths} to ten {cubits}, it is permitted if what is standing is more than what is torn down, but forbidden if what is torn down is more than what is standing. More than ten, it is forbidden even though what is standing is more than what is torn down. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from three to four.” There is a hole of three and no place of four! Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state: “One surrounds with sticks,” does a stick form a place? He said to him, do not object to me from a breach less than three hand-breadths, since anything less than three is considered closed! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: In any case, since what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted.

Excess sticks that exceed the sukkah are considered part of the sukkah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Only if it is on the entire front. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even at a wall. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even not at a wall. In the opinion of Rebbi Yasa it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, how could you be lenient in this if its sunshine is more than its shade?

Excess sticks that exceed the sukkah are considered part of the sukkah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Only if it is on the entire front. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even at a wall. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even not at a wall. In the opinion of Rebbi Yasa it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, how could you be lenient in this if its sunshine is more than its shade?

“But one may spread it over single posts of the bed.” Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Since so he makes space with the extremities of his hands.

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because it looks like storage.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is [four] wide. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements. But was not Rebbi Jeremiah {saying} in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is four wide? Therefore if they have been polished for implements everybody agrees that it is permitted. Since Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, if he used steps of ladders for roofing it is disqualified, and they are saying that he ruled according to Rebbi Meïr, this implies that both cases are the same. Since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements, therefore if it is four {hand-breadths} wide everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Now Rebbi Yasa ruled at the big assembly that one may use a cross-beam for the thatched roof, and they said that he ruled following Rebbi Jehudah, this implies that both cases are the same.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is [four] wide. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements. But was not Rebbi Jeremiah {saying} in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is four wide? Therefore if they have been polished for implements everybody agrees that it is permitted. Since Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, if he used steps of ladders for roofing it is disqualified, and they are saying that he ruled according to Rebbi Meïr, this implies that both cases are the same. Since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements, therefore if it is four {hand-breadths} wide everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Now Rebbi Yasa ruled at the big assembly that one may use a cross-beam for the thatched roof, and they said that he ruled following Rebbi Jehudah, this implies that both cases are the same.

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

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

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because it looks like a storage. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, you shall make for yourself, not from what already was made for you. What is the difference between them? If it is in it. In Rebbi Ḥiyya’s opinion it is disqualified, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is qualified.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because it looks like a storage. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, you shall make for yourself, not from what already was made for you. What is the difference between them? If it is in it. In Rebbi Ḥiyya’s opinion it is disqualified, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is qualified.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose said it only for Tabernacles, but in the matter of the Sabbath even Rebbi Yose agrees. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it is even for the Sabbath, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, a ruler came to Sepphoris and they suspended quilts; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose permitted carrying under them following his father’s argument. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina comes like Rebbi Ḥanania and both disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Ḥanania bar Aqabia all three said the same. Rebbi Jehudah of the open bridges, Rebbi Yose that of tabernacles, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia as it was stated Rebbi Ḥanania permitted three things, he permitted a balcony, and seaweed, and bringing bathtowels.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose said it only for Tabernacles, but in the matter of the Sabbath even Rebbi Yose agrees. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it is even for the Sabbath, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, a ruler came to Sepphoris and they suspended quilts; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose permitted carrying under them following his father’s argument. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina comes like Rebbi Ḥanania and both disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Ḥanania bar Aqabia all three said the same. Rebbi Jehudah of the open bridges, Rebbi Yose that of tabernacles, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia as it was stated Rebbi Ḥanania permitted three things, he permitted a balcony, and seaweed, and bringing bathtowels.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose said it only for Tabernacles, but in the matter of the Sabbath even Rebbi Yose agrees. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it is even for the Sabbath, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, a ruler came to Sepphoris and they suspended quilts; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose permitted carrying under them following his father’s argument. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina comes like Rebbi Ḥanania and both disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Ḥanania bar Aqabia all three said the same. Rebbi Jehudah of the open bridges, Rebbi Yose that of tabernacles, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia as it was stated Rebbi Ḥanania permitted three things, he permitted a balcony, and seaweed, and bringing bathtowels.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths; disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated both. “Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths,” as we have stated: “If the roofing is three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” “Disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits,” as we have stated: “If a house partially collapsed and he thatched over it, it is disqualified if from the walls to the thatching it is four cubits.” Therefore less is qualified. May one sleep under that? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv answered: pourable mud completes a miqweh but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the sukkah but one may not sleep under it. Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Cahana, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, why do we not say, because disqualified roofing only disqualifies in four cubits?

Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They formulated this for Usha mats. Rebbi Eliezer said, [normally] Usha mats are impure unless made for tents. Normally Tiberian mats are pure unless made for sitting. Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi instructed about those on the doors of stores that they are pure. Rebbi Immi instructed that woven ones are impure. May one use them for roofing? The disagreement of Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar instructed in distress to untie the knots and use them as roofing. We have stated: “And similarly if one unties the knots it is pure,” and you are saying so?

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna went to Eintab for the indication. While coming he became thirsty but did not accept tasting anything before he went to the sukkah of Rebbi Joḥanan the scribe of Gufta.

MISHNAH: It happened that one brought Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai a dish to taste, and Rabban Gamliel two dates and a pail of water and they said, bring them to the sukkah. But when one gave Rebbi Ṣadoq food in the volume of less than an egg he took it with a napkin, ate it outside of the sukkah, and did not recite a benediction afterwards.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, you shall sit, and it says there, at the door of the Tent of Meeting they shall sit day and night. Since for the sitting mentioned there He made nights like days, so also for the sitting mentioned here we shall make nights like days. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth for Passover and it is said fifteenth for Tabernacles. Since for fifteenth said for Passover the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional, so also for fifteenth said for Tabernacles the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional. The colleagues asked, since there only that one comes to eat mazzah with an appetite, so also here only they come to eat in the sukkah with appetite? Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Since there only one has to eat mazzah in the volume of an olive, so also here only one has to eat grain [in the sukkah] in the volume of an olive? Rebbi Hoshaia said, the sukkah is obligatory all seven days. Rebbi Berekhiah said, they disagree. Rebbi Abuna said, they do not disagree. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he put his mind to it; what Rebbi Hoshaia said, if he did not put his mind to it.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, you shall sit, and it says there, at the door of the Tent of Meeting they shall sit day and night. Since for the sitting mentioned there He made nights like days, so also for the sitting mentioned here we shall make nights like days. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth for Passover and it is said fifteenth for Tabernacles. Since for fifteenth said for Passover the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional, so also for fifteenth said for Tabernacles the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional. The colleagues asked, since there only that one comes to eat mazzah with an appetite, so also here only they come to eat in the sukkah with appetite? Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Since there only one has to eat mazzah in the volume of an olive, so also here only one has to eat grain [in the sukkah] in the volume of an olive? Rebbi Hoshaia said, the sukkah is obligatory all seven days. Rebbi Berekhiah said, they disagree. Rebbi Abuna said, they do not disagree. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he put his mind to it; what Rebbi Hoshaia said, if he did not put his mind to it.

MISHNAH: If a person’s head and most of his body was in the sukkah but his table inside the house, the House of Shammai declare it disqualified but the House of Hillel qualified. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran and found him with his head and most of his body in the sukkah but his table inside the house. The House of Shammai answered them, is this a proof? They said to him, if you are used to do this, you never in your life did fulfill the obligation of sukkah.

From where did the House of Hillel merit that practice should be fixed following their words? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, because they quoted the words of the House of Shammai before their own words. Not only that, but if they were convinced by the words of the House of Shammai they changed their opinions. Rebbi Simon bar Zeved objected before Rebbi Ila: Or could we say that the Tanna saw that they were older and quoted them first? But did we not state, “it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran”? We could have said, our elders and your elders. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: Since the House of Shammai dismissed the House of Hillel, this implies that practice follows their words.

HALAKHAH: What is a minor? In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, any who needs his mother to cleanse him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any who awakes from his sleep and cries “Mamma”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Any minor who does not need his mother is obligated for the sukkah but goes out with his mother’s eruv.

Where do they disagree? If he robbed it smoothed. But if he robbed it and smoothed it, he owes him money. If he robbed a lulav from one, a myrtle branch from another, and a willow branch from a third and tied them together? Let us hear from the following: A robbed sukkah, there are Tannaim who stated, it is qualified; there are Tannaim who stated, it is disqualified. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who said, it is qualified, if he robbed the real estate. He who said, it is disqualified, if he robbed the agricultural waste. It is impossible that he not tie them together. If he places it from the top. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In every case it is disqualified. What is the robbed one which is disqualified? Any time a person enters another’s sukkah without his knowledge. As the following. Gamliel the twin made himself a sukkah on the market. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish passed by and told him, who gave you permission?

Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. So is the Mishnah: If one can shake it, it is qualified. It was stated: Myrtle and willow twig three, and lulav four. It was stated, by the cubit of five {hand-breadths}, the words of Rebbi Tarphon, but the Sages are saying, by the cubit of six. For Rebbi Tarphon, large hand-breadths; in the opinion of the Sages, thin hand-breadths. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Patriarch: The lulav a hand-breadth. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the hyssop a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon confirmed it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth, the ram’s horn a hand-breadth, the placenta a hand-breadth, and some are saying, also the third wall a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth except the spine? The hyssop a hand-breadth except for the stalk? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav; Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Parnakh, Rav Mattanah, Yose bar Manisha in the name of Rav: The lulav a hand-breadth except for the spine; the hyssop a hand-breadth except for its stalks.

He who makes a lulav for himself says, praise to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a lulav. For another, to make a lulav in his name. When he takes it he says, praise to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about taking the lulav. If he prayed with it he says, praise to Him Who let us live, and kept us, and let us reach this time. He says the benediction every time when he takes it. How does one recite the benediction for the Ḥanukkah light? Rav said, praised to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us the commandment [to kindle] the light of Ḥanukkah. Everybody agrees that on the first day he says, about taking the lulav. What do they disagree about? The remaining days. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about taking the lulav. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, about commandments of the Elders. What did Rav say for the lulav? Since for Ḥanukkah which is from their words he is saying, about the commandment of the light of Ḥanukkah, for lulav which is from the Torah not so much more? What did Rebbi Joshua ben Levi say on Ḥanukkah? Since for lulav which is from the Torah he is saying, about commandments of the Elders, for Ḥanukkah which is from their words not so much more? The only problem is, what did Rebbi Joḥanan say on Ḥanukkah?

He who makes a lulav for himself says, praise to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a lulav. For another, to make a lulav in his name. When he takes it he says, praise to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about taking the lulav. If he prayed with it he says, praise to Him Who let us live, and kept us, and let us reach this time. He says the benediction every time when he takes it. How does one recite the benediction for the Ḥanukkah light? Rav said, praised to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us the commandment [to kindle] the light of Ḥanukkah. Everybody agrees that on the first day he says, about taking the lulav. What do they disagree about? The remaining days. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about taking the lulav. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, about commandments of the Elders. What did Rav say for the lulav? Since for Ḥanukkah which is from their words he is saying, about the commandment of the light of Ḥanukkah, for lulav which is from the Torah not so much more? What did Rebbi Joshua ben Levi say on Ḥanukkah? Since for lulav which is from the Torah he is saying, about commandments of the Elders, for Ḥanukkah which is from their words not so much more? The only problem is, what did Rebbi Joḥanan say on Ḥanukkah?

MISHNAH: Originally the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven {days} and in the country one day. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav be taken in the country for seven {days} as remembrance of the Temple, and that the day of waving be entirely forbidden. If the first day of Tabernacles is a Sabbath, everybody brings their lulav to the synagogue. The next day they come in the morning and everybody recognizes his own and takes it, since they said that nobody can fulfill his obligation with another person’s lulav on the first day of Tabernacles; but on the other days of the holiday a person can fulfill his obligation with another person’s lulav. Rebbi Yose says, if somebody forgot and took the lulav into the public domain on the first day of Tabernacles which is a Sabbath he is not liable since he took it out with permission.