anan

If he is still there, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving, and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once.” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family.” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. One said, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai. But the other said, Rebbi Jehudah thinks that she never became impure. If you say, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai, should he not have stated 30 days and forteen years? One does not state months while reporting years.

HALAKHAH: “If two groups of witnesses,” etc. Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, and that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five. Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent in what he said, since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that refer [to] the facts, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer concedes in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to that of her companion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”.

HALAKHAH: “If two groups of witnesses,” etc. Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, and that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five. Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent in what he said, since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that refer [to] the facts, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer concedes in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to that of her companion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”.

HALAKHAH: “If two groups of witnesses,” etc. Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, and that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five. Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent in what he said, since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that refer [to] the facts, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer concedes in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to that of her companion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”.

HALAKHAH: “If two groups of witnesses,” etc. Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, and that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five. Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent in what he said, since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that refer [to] the facts, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer concedes in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to that of her companion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody said ‘I am a nazir’ and another person heard it and said, ‘and so am I’,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “and so am I”, “and so am I”. Who is the Tanna of conjunctions? Rebbi Jehudah. But following Rebbi Meïr, “I am,” “I am”. Does the Mishnah require that all of them follow immediately after the speaking of the first? It was stated: If the middle one was permitted, all following him are permitted, all preceding him are forbidden. The Mishnah applies even if not all of them follow immediately after the speaking of the first, but each one follows immediately after the speaking of the preceding person. What means “to follow immediately after the speaking”? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The time needed for greeting between two people. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The time needed for greeting between teacher and student, that he say to him, “peace upon you, my master.”

HALAKHAH: If she is permitted, he is permitted. If he is permitted, she is not permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because he makes his vow conditional on hers, if he says, on condition that you [accept].

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The husband who said “there is no vow, there is no oath,” did not say anything. Also the Elder who said “it is dissolved for you, it is voided for you,” did not say anything. But everybody has to follow his own rules. The husband says “it is dissolved for you, it is voided for you,” and the Elder says, “there is no vow, there is no oath”.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ at the end. Rebbi Simeon says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ for every item.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, [Rebbi Simeon implies] if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the baraita supports the colleagues: “A woman made a vow as nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I;’ if the first’s husband heard and told her, ‘it is permitted to you,’ the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. Rebbi Simeon says, if she said, my intention was only to be like her, in her state, the second also is permitted.” Because she said “to be like her, in her state;” therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state,” the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where there was no original nezirut, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? When Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest, if he attaches: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ at the end. Rebbi Simeon says, only if he mentions ‘oath’ for every item.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, [Rebbi Simeon implies] if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not; Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the baraita supports the colleagues: “A woman made a vow as nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I;’ if the first’s husband heard and told her, ‘it is permitted to you,’ the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. Rebbi Simeon says, if she said, my intention was only to be like her, in her state, the second also is permitted.” Because she said “to be like her, in her state;” therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state,” the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where there was no original nezirut, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? When Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not prosecutable for the rest, if he attaches: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

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 (reparation sacrifices) 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 donation accounts. 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 our teacher Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as donation. The leftover of his tenth of an epha: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given as donation.

HALAKHAH: “If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her,” etc. He dissolves for her because of her hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It is a decision of Scripture: “He dissolved her vows,” he dissolves what is on her. Whenever he dissolves her vow, he dissolves what is on her. Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, after she was transferred from the prohibition to the positive commandment. The rabbis say, “afterwards, the nazir shall drink wine,” after all these actions. Rebbi Simeon says, even after a single action. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi (Bevai). “When has this been said? If she shaves in purity. But if she shaves in impurity, he may dissolve since he can say, I cannot stand an unseemly wife.” Therefore, shaving in purity does not make her unseemly. Who holds that shaving does not make unseemly? Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, even Rebbi thinks so: “Rebbi says, he may dissolve even if she shaves [in purity], since he can say, I cannot stand a shorn wife.” Should he not say, I cannot stand an unseemly and shorn wife? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi (Jehudah) said that only for the purification sacrifice, since a purification sacrifice would be invalid if not in her name. That means, as long as it is alive it is surrendered to Heaven only by slaughter.

HALAKHAH: “If one of the bloods was sprinkled for her,” etc. He dissolves for her because of her hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It is a decision of Scripture: “He dissolved her vows,” he dissolves what is on her. Whenever he dissolves her vow, he dissolves what is on her. Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, after she was transferred from the prohibition to the positive commandment. The rabbis say, “afterwards, the nazir shall drink wine,” after all these actions. Rebbi Simeon says, even after a single action. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi (Bevai). “When has this been said? If she shaves in purity. But if she shaves in impurity, he may dissolve since he can say, I cannot stand an unseemly wife.” Therefore, shaving in purity does not make her unseemly. Who holds that shaving does not make unseemly? Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, even Rebbi thinks so: “Rebbi says, he may dissolve even if she shaves [in purity], since he can say, I cannot stand a shorn wife.” Should he not say, I cannot stand an unseemly and shorn wife? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi (Jehudah) said that only for the purification sacrifice, since a purification sacrifice would be invalid if not in her name. That means, as long as it is alive it is surrendered to Heaven only by slaughter.

A man can declare a nazir, and a man can shave. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Meïr: In 24 matters are the House of Shammai lenient but the House of Hillel stringent, and this is one of them: The House of Shammai say, a man cannot declare his son to be a nazir but the House of Hillel say, a man can declare his son to be a nazir. It was stated about those who are nazir from the womb. Some want to say, until he grows two pubic hairs. Some want to say, until he reaches the time of vows. Everybody agrees that he can no longer declare him a nazir once he reaches the time of vows.

There, we have stated: “If somebody says, ‘I undertake [to bring] on a pan’ and he brought in a deep vessel, in a deep vessel and he brought on a pan.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is the House of Shammai’s, since the House of Shammai say, “dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose: Why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he said, “I said, on a pan”? But if he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan,” and then he changed his mind and said, “in a deep vessel”, he fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Yasa came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan or in a deep vessel,” turned around and said, “on a pan”, and turned around and said, “in a deep vessel”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Hama in the name of Rebbi Yose: He determines even orally. They thought to say, even holidays determine, even vessels determine.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices.” Ḥizqiah said, in error: a prohibition, the one who substitutes: a prohibition. If he wants to say “profane” but said “an elevation sacrifice”, it is sanctified. If he wants to say “an elevation sacrifice” but said “profane”, it is not sanctified. It follows that Rebbi Joḥanan, interpreting Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, parallels Rebbi Jeremiah’s explanation regarding the House of Shammai on sacrifices. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, may one understand that “He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices,” if somebody dedicates a firstling? Can it be dedicated? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Yasa say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicated a firstling and it was brought to the altar, it is not sanctified even for its money’s worth. If somebody dedicated a blemished animal for the altar, even as a substitute it is not sanctified. But if somebody dedicated an animal with a temporary blemish. Is that consistent with whipping? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, explain it if he gave unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices.” Ḥizqiah said, in error: a prohibition, the one who substitutes: a prohibition. If he wants to say “profane” but said “an elevation sacrifice”, it is sanctified. If he wants to say “an elevation sacrifice” but said “profane”, it is not sanctified. It follows that Rebbi Joḥanan, interpreting Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, parallels Rebbi Jeremiah’s explanation regarding the House of Shammai on sacrifices. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, may one understand that “He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices,” if somebody dedicates a firstling? Can it be dedicated? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Yasa say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicated a firstling and it was brought to the altar, it is not sanctified even for its money’s worth. If somebody dedicated a blemished animal for the altar, even as a substitute it is not sanctified. But if somebody dedicated an animal with a temporary blemish. Is that consistent with whipping? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, explain it if he gave unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices.” Ḥizqiah said, in error: a prohibition, the one who substitutes: a prohibition. If he wants to say “profane” but said “an elevation sacrifice”, it is sanctified. If he wants to say “an elevation sacrifice” but said “profane”, it is not sanctified. It follows that Rebbi Joḥanan, interpreting Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, parallels Rebbi Jeremiah’s explanation regarding the House of Shammai on sacrifices. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, may one understand that “He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices,” if somebody dedicates a firstling? Can it be dedicated? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Yasa say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicated a firstling and it was brought to the altar, it is not sanctified even for its money’s worth. If somebody dedicated a blemished animal for the altar, even as a substitute it is not sanctified. But if somebody dedicated an animal with a temporary blemish. Is that consistent with whipping? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, explain it if he gave unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s method: If somebody dedicated unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple, he violates a positive commandment. Why also a prohibition? The verse says: “The Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר”: a prohibition was pronounced, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi was sitting and studying the rule that “a firstling cannot be substituted” when Bar Pedaiah’s father was passing by. Rebbi saw him, and said, do I know what I should say here, “the Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר,” could one explain the words of Rebbi Jehudah? Is it written thus? It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that nobody can ask about his substitution. Where do they disagree? About his dedication; for the House of Shammai say, since a person cannot ask about his substitution, he cannot ask about his dedication, but the House of Hillel say, a person can ask about his dedication but not about his substitution.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: You catch him at the mention of “ox”, at the mention of “first”. “The black ox which comes out of my house first,” if a white one came out and the black followed him, you catch him because he is the leader of the black ones. “The white ox which comes out of my house first,” if a black one came out and the white followed him, you catch him because he is the leader of the white ones. “The ox which stands at the manger” and it was lying down, “lying down” and it was standing, should be like what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he wanted to give heave from wheat and he gave from barley, during nighttime he did not do anything, during daytime, what he did is done. Brown grain and it turned out to be white, even during daytime he did not do anything. “A ram” is nothing. “A calf” yes, since it is written: “A calf of cattle as purification offering.” “A sheep” is nothing. “Tetradrachmas” is nothing. “Change” is nothing. “A gold denar” was sanctified.

It has been stated: 300 nezirim came in the days of Rebbi Simeon ben Shetaḥ. For 150 of them he found an opening, for 150 of them he did not find an opening. He came to king Yannai and said to him: There are here 300 nezirim who need 900 sacrifices. You should give half of them from your side, I shall give half from my side. The king sent him 450 animals. An informer went around and said that the other one had not given anything from his own money. King Yannai heard about it and got angry. Simeon ben Shetaḥ heard and fled. After some time, important people from the Persian empire came to king Yannai. They said to him: We remember that there was an old man who gave us a rabbinic discourse. They said to him, send and bring him! He sent and gave him his word; he came and sat between king and queen. He said to him, why did you trick me? He said, I did not trick you; you with your money and I with my learning, as it is written (Eccl. 7:12) “In the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money.” He said to him, why did you disappear? He said to him, I heard that my lord was angry with me and I wanted to fulfill the verse (Is. 26:20) “Hide a little bit until the rage passes;” he used about himself (Eccl. 7:12): “Knowledge is an advantage, wisdom lets its possessor live.” He said to him, why did you sit between king and queen? He said to him, it is written in the book of Ben Sirach: “Esteem it and it will raise you and seat you among princes.” He said, bring him a cup that he may recite Grace. They brought him a cup and he said: “Let us give praise for the food that Yannai and his company ate.” He said to him, what should I say, “for the food that we did not eat?” He said, bring him something that he may eat. They brought, he ate and recited: “For the food that we ate.” Rebbi Yoḥanan said, his colleagues disagree with Simeon ben Shetaḥ. Rebbi Jeremiah said, about the first action; Rebbi Abba said, about the second action. Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! There he wondered about it and here it is obvious for him! He wondered following the Sages; it is obvious to him following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. We have stated about this: If one came, was lying on a couch, and dipped with them, even if he did not eat grain the volume of an olive one ‘invites’ with him, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One never ‘invites’ anyone unless he has eaten grain the volume of an olive. But did we not formulate, “two [eating] bread and one [eating] vegetable, then one ‘invites’?” This baraita follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

It has been stated: 300 nezirim came in the days of Rebbi Simeon ben Shetaḥ. For 150 of them he found an opening, for 150 of them he did not find an opening. He came to king Yannai and said to him: There are here 300 nezirim who need 900 sacrifices. You should give half of them from your side, I shall give half from my side. The king sent him 450 animals. An informer went around and said that the other one had not given anything from his own money. King Yannai heard about it and got angry. Simeon ben Shetaḥ heard and fled. After some time, important people from the Persian empire came to king Yannai. They said to him: We remember that there was an old man who gave us a rabbinic discourse. They said to him, send and bring him! He sent and gave him his word; he came and sat between king and queen. He said to him, why did you trick me? He said, I did not trick you; you with your money and I with my learning, as it is written (Eccl. 7:12) “In the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money.” He said to him, why did you disappear? He said to him, I heard that my lord was angry with me and I wanted to fulfill the verse (Is. 26:20) “Hide a little bit until the rage passes;” he used about himself (Eccl. 7:12): “Knowledge is an advantage, wisdom lets its possessor live.” He said to him, why did you sit between king and queen? He said to him, it is written in the book of Ben Sirach: “Esteem it and it will raise you and seat you among princes.” He said, bring him a cup that he may recite Grace. They brought him a cup and he said: “Let us give praise for the food that Yannai and his company ate.” He said to him, what should I say, “for the food that we did not eat?” He said, bring him something that he may eat. They brought, he ate and recited: “For the food that we ate.” Rebbi Yoḥanan said, his colleagues disagree with Simeon ben Shetaḥ. Rebbi Jeremiah said, about the first action; Rebbi Abba said, about the second action. Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! There he wondered about it and here it is obvious for him! He wondered following the Sages; it is obvious to him following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. We have stated about this: If one came, was lying on a couch, and dipped with them, even if he did not eat grain the volume of an olive one ‘invites’ with him, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One never ‘invites’ anyone unless he has eaten grain the volume of an olive. But did we not formulate, “two [eating] bread and one [eating] vegetable, then one ‘invites’?” This baraita follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. Also here: “Do not worship them,” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether [He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven.

Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. Also here: “Do not worship them,” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether [He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven.

Warning for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn” animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’, you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it. They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,” “and blood you shall not eat,” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

Warning for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn” animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’, you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it. They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,” “and blood you shall not eat,” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

Warning for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn” animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’, you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it. They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,” “and blood you shall not eat,” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

Warning for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn” animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’, you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it. They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,” “and blood you shall not eat,” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

Warning for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn” animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’, you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it. They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,” “and blood you shall not eat,” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

Rebbi [Yose] said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats. If somebody split an ant in his mouth and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries which are ‘orlah and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them.

Rebbi [Yose] said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats. If somebody split an ant in his mouth and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries which are ‘orlah and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them.

Rebbi [Yose] said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats. If somebody split an ant in his mouth and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries which are ‘orlah and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them.

Rebbi [Yose] said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats. If somebody split an ant in his mouth and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries which are ‘orlah and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them.

Rebbi [Yose] said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats. If somebody split an ant in his mouth and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries which are ‘orlah and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them.

Rebbi [Yose] said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats. If somebody split an ant in his mouth and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries which are ‘orlah and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them.

A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass. Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food. Rebbi Eleazar objected: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat?

A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass. Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food. Rebbi Eleazar objected: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat?

A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass. Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food. Rebbi Eleazar objected: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat?

Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarti asked: Then one who eats a limb from a kosher living animal should be guilty on two counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh.” Does one argue from kosher abour non-kosher animals? But did not Rebbi Eleazar argue from kosher about non-kosher animals? Then one who eats a limb from a non-kosher living animal should be guilty on three counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh”; and because of “you shall not eat from their flesh.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If somebody ate five ants together, in one forgetting, he is guilty for each one separately because of “creature”. If he fragmented and ate them, he is guilty only once, if together they amount to the volume of an olive. If he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive, he is guilty; if he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive and an ant, he is guilty twice. If this is correct, then if he ate of the fragments less than the volume of an olive and an ant completed the volume of an olive, is he guilty twice? If this is correct, if the ate an ant the size of an olive, is he guilty twice? The same rule applies to combinations of a nazir. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive, he is guilty. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive and a grape berry, is he guilty twice? If this is correct, then if he ate a grape berry for the volume ofan olive, is he guilty twice? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All [food] prohibitions combine together to be whipped for the volume of an olive, but for an ant one is guilty twice. Then if he ate prohibited food and an ant completed the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice. Then if he ate an ant the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One estimates [food] prohibitions as if they concerned onions or leeks. This parallels what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If carcass meat disappeared among slaughtered meat, its [impurity by] touch has disappeared by biblical law.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Ḥiya bar Yosef objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Take, for example, meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What is meant by: he accepted that? Rebbi Ḥiya bar Abun said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Ḥiya bar Yosef objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Take, for example, meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What is meant by: he accepted that? Rebbi Ḥiya bar Abun said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself] except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not) warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes.” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted. Mixed wine combines with pure wine. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty. Separately, he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once.

HALAKHAH: “A nazir who drank wine,” etc. A nazir while he was in a cemetery: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about wine and shaving. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one cannot warn him because of impurity, one does not warn him about wine and shaving. One reads all this in the Third Chapter.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut,” from the day he brings his sacrifices, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, from the time of his shaving. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hoshaia, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? If he shaved on the seventh and brought his sacrifices on the eighth. But if he shaved on the eighth and brought his sacrifices on the same day, everybody agrees on the day he brings his sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if he immersed himself on the seventh. But if he immersed himself on the eighth, the eighth takes the place of the seventh and the seventh of the eighth; he counts only from that “seventh”. If he became impure and impure again, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but following Rebbi this person still stays in impure nezirut. Rebbi Hila said, where do they disagree? To count nezirut in purity. “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut and bring.” Rebbi said, until he actually brought. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, even if he was enabled to bring the sacrifice for impurity. Everybody agrees that he brings a sacrifice for impurity. It was stated thus: If he became impure on the seventh, and again impure on the eighth, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. In Rebbi Ze‘ira’s opinion, following Rebbi the first sacrifice is superseded and he brings the second; following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah it was not superseded. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, everybody agrees that nothing is superseded and he brings another.

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ”, etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked: “Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Rebbi Joshia also agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ”, etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked: “Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Rebbi Joshia also agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste food on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: “And ten female donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food, etc.” Why does the verse say, “and food”? From here that everything is called food.

Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Yasa disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were onion or leeks.

HALAKHAH: Is it counted for him and his shaving? If you would say that it is not counted for him and his shaving, then his sacrifices count for nothing. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Following Rebbi Simeon, may he shave for his holiday well-being offerings? Is that not the Mishnah? “Rebbi Simeon says, that sacrifice is not counted for him but the others are counted for him.” When he slaughtered them are they not like voluntary well-being offerings? This means that he may shave for voluntary well-being offerings following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rebbi Joḥanan. For Rav Ada bar Aḥawa it is problematic, but for Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious.

HALAKHAH: Is it counted for him and his shaving? If you would say that it is not counted for him and his shaving, then his sacrifices count for nothing. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Following Rebbi Simeon, may he shave for his holiday well-being offerings? Is that not the Mishnah? “Rebbi Simeon says, that sacrifice is not counted for him but the others are counted for him.” When he slaughtered them are they not like voluntary well-being offerings? This means that he may shave for voluntary well-being offerings following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rebbi Joḥanan. For Rav Ada bar Aḥawa it is problematic, but for Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious.

HALAKHAH: Is it counted for him and his shaving? If you would say that it is not counted for him and his shaving, then his sacrifices count for nothing. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Following Rebbi Simeon, may he shave for his holiday well-being offerings? Is that not the Mishnah? “Rebbi Simeon says, that sacrifice is not counted for him but the others are counted for him.” When he slaughtered them are they not like voluntary well-being offerings? This means that he may shave for voluntary well-being offerings following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa and Rebbi Joḥanan. For Rav Ada bar Aḥawa it is problematic, but for Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There, he says: “he has to repeat only for 30,” and here, he says so? Rebbi Joḥanan says, he has to repeat all his sacrifices. It is obvious, if it would have been valid without him becoming impure, then why is it not valid if later he becomes impure? Rebbi Ḥinena said, is that not Rebbi Eliezer’s? And Rebbi Eliezer follows the Shammaites, as it was stated: Concerning a nazir who lost all his hair, the House of Shammai say, he has to move a shaving knife over his head; the House of Hillel say, he does not need to move a shaving knife over his head.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. “It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left. He cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. “It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left. He cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him.

Rebbi Yannai said: A Cohen defiles himself in order to see the King. When King Diocletian visited here, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was seen stepping over graves at Tyre in order to see him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is an obligation to see great persons of government, so that when the kingdom of the dynasty of David will return one will know how to distinguish one government from the other.

May [a Cohen] defile himself in honor of his father and mother? Rebbi Yasa heard that his mother had come to Bostra. He went and asked Rebbi Yoḥanan, may I leave? He said to him, if it is because of danger on the road, leave. If it is in order to honor your mother, I do not know. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Yoḥanan still needs to answer. He importuned him, so he said: Since you decided to go, return in peace. Rebbi Eleazar heard this and said: there is no greater permission than that.

May [a Cohen] defile himself in honor of his father and mother? Rebbi Yasa heard that his mother had come to Bostra. He went and asked Rebbi Yoḥanan, may I leave? He said to him, if it is because of danger on the road, leave. If it is in order to honor your mother, I do not know. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Yoḥanan still needs to answer. He importuned him, so he said: Since you decided to go, return in peace. Rebbi Eleazar heard this and said: there is no greater permission than that.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: One does not ask rulings on practice before the bier of a deceased. But Rebbi Yoḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai before the bier of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq about him who dedicated his elevation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Sanctuary, and he answered him! Let us say when they were bringing him to the study hall. But Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra before the bier of (Rebbi Simeon and) Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac! Let us say that he answered him when he was far away; when he was close he did not answer him.

HALAKHAH: “The nazir shaves for the following impurities,” etc. An old man asked Rebbi Joḥanan: If the volume of an olive from a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive. He continued to ask: If a limb of a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth whose limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Yose said, was that old man wise? His questions were not wise since after he asked the first question, it was not necessary to ask the second. If he wanted to ask both, he should have asked the second and after that the first. The students of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta asked the second but did not ask the first because it was obvious for them that if he did not reach the volume of an olive it is certain that his limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Mana bar Ḥizqiah said, do you remember when Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa was here, were not both questions by that old man [asked] about Ahilut that the nazir shaves for them? In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan said, I thought that the stillbirths were not Torah. But since he makes his mother sit days of purity, it is implied that [the rules of] stillbirths are Torah.

HALAKHAH: “The nazir shaves for the following impurities,” etc. An old man asked Rebbi Joḥanan: If the volume of an olive from a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive. He continued to ask: If a limb of a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth whose limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Yose said, was that old man wise? His questions were not wise since after he asked the first question, it was not necessary to ask the second. If he wanted to ask both, he should have asked the second and after that the first. The students of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta asked the second but did not ask the first because it was obvious for them that if he did not reach the volume of an olive it is certain that his limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Mana bar Ḥizqiah said, do you remember when Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa was here, were not both questions by that old man [asked] about Ahilut that the nazir shaves for them? In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan said, I thought that the stillbirths were not Torah. But since he makes his mother sit days of purity, it is implied that [the rules of] stillbirths are Torah.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai says, why did they say that a crawling animal the size of a lentil makes impure? Because the start of the creation of a crawling animal is the size of a lentil. Rebbi Yudan asked: Should not a corpse bring impurity even if it is less than the volume of an olive, for did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, “to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive”? And a carcass the size of a pea should cause impurity, for Rebbi Ḥanina said, I saw a calf the size of a pea in a placenta! How is that? I say, [these are] sermons. Preach and receive reward.

“Which corpse has decay? One who was buried naked in a marble coffin, or on a stone floor, or on a marble table. But if he was buried in a wooden casket or on a woooden plank; that is not decay but graves’ dust and needs somewhat more than a spoonful.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if even the smallest attachment was buried with him, there is no decay. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Of two corpses which were buried together, each one becomes an attachment for the other. This is automatic; could one alone be an attachment to another? Abba bar Nathan objected: Think of it, that somebody brought half a spoonful from one and half a spoonful from the other! He was considering it when he was seen laughing; he was offended by him and he died. Rebbi Yose said, there this man is gone and we did hear nothing about it. What about it? There, neither of them will produce a spoonful of decayed matter, but here, each of them can generate a spoonful of decay.

“Which corpse has decay? One who was buried naked in a marble coffin, or on a stone floor, or on a marble table. But if he was buried in a wooden casket or on a woooden plank; that is not decay but graves’ dust and needs somewhat more than a spoonful.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if even the smallest attachment was buried with him, there is no decay. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Of two corpses which were buried together, each one becomes an attachment for the other. This is automatic; could one alone be an attachment to another? Abba bar Nathan objected: Think of it, that somebody brought half a spoonful from one and half a spoonful from the other! He was considering it when he was seen laughing; he was offended by him and he died. Rebbi Yose said, there this man is gone and we did hear nothing about it. What about it? There, neither of them will produce a spoonful of decayed matter, but here, each of them can generate a spoonful of decay.

If his foot was cut off, from above the joint there is no “decay”, from below the joint there is “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon: If he bound from below the joint as attachment? He said to them, if it were so, even if it was not cut I should consider it as if cut and it should be an attachment! Since it is connected to him, it forms one body. If there is something missing, can it have “decay”? Let us hear from the following: If it is imcomplete, there is no “decay”, it does not require the surrounding earth, and it is not part of a row of graves. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, how much must be missing that it have no “decay”? Might it follow what we have stated there: “That he will die if it was removed.” Is it the same here? Think of it, if the esophagus was perforated, nothing was missing but he could not survive. You have only the following: If his foot was cut off, from below the joint there is “decay”, from above the joint there is no “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him.

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh. Rebbi Yose asked: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person, that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, overhanging branches and protuberances are biblical for heave even though the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if to burn it, one burns even for a rabbinic doubt; maybe to whip? Rebbi [Yose] from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah and disgagrees with Rebbi Jeremiah: “For any impurity deriving from a corpse for which a nazir shaves one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity deriving from a corpse for which a nazir does not shave one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, layers of a tree which cover four-by-four [handbreadths]: the nazir shaves. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of his hands is on the other side and one hand is in the layer, the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Yose asked: If it separates from impurity it also should separate from purity; if it does not separate from impurity, it should not separate from purity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the bedroom and the nazir under the bed, the nazir shaves. Certainly if the corpse is under the bed and the nazir in the bedroom, does the nazir not shave? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse and the nazir are under the bed frame, under the belly of a camel, under the width of a gate, under the gutters, the nazir does not shave, nor for anything which is there for protection. Ḥizqiah heard it and said, they purified the dead! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the anteroom and the nazir in the dining hall, the nazir shaves; certainly if the corpse is in the dining hall and the nazir in the anteroom, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Mana asked, if it is a tent to separate it should be a tent to draw along; if it is not a tent to draw along, the impurity should disappear! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the impurity is under the outer half of the wall, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground of the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The nazir does not shave for most of the skeleton or most of the bones.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, layers of a tree which cover four-by-four [handbreadths]: the nazir shaves. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of his hands is on the other side and one hand is in the layer, the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Yose asked: If it separates from impurity it also should separate from purity; if it does not separate from impurity, it should not separate from purity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the bedroom and the nazir under the bed, the nazir shaves. Certainly if the corpse is under the bed and the nazir in the bedroom, does the nazir not shave? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse and the nazir are under the bed frame, under the belly of a camel, under the width of a gate, under the gutters, the nazir does not shave, nor for anything which is there for protection. Ḥizqiah heard it and said, they purified the dead! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the anteroom and the nazir in the dining hall, the nazir shaves; certainly if the corpse is in the dining hall and the nazir in the anteroom, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Mana asked, if it is a tent to separate it should be a tent to draw along; if it is not a tent to draw along, the impurity should disappear! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the impurity is under the outer half of the wall, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground of the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The nazir does not shave for most of the skeleton or most of the bones.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, layers of a tree which cover four-by-four [handbreadths]: the nazir shaves. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of his hands is on the other side and one hand is in the layer, the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Yose asked: If it separates from impurity it also should separate from purity; if it does not separate from impurity, it should not separate from purity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the bedroom and the nazir under the bed, the nazir shaves. Certainly if the corpse is under the bed and the nazir in the bedroom, does the nazir not shave? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse and the nazir are under the bed frame, under the belly of a camel, under the width of a gate, under the gutters, the nazir does not shave, nor for anything which is there for protection. Ḥizqiah heard it and said, they purified the dead! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the anteroom and the nazir in the dining hall, the nazir shaves; certainly if the corpse is in the dining hall and the nazir in the anteroom, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Mana asked, if it is a tent to separate it should be a tent to draw along; if it is not a tent to draw along, the impurity should disappear! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the impurity is under the outer half of the wall, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground of the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The nazir does not shave for most of the skeleton or most of the bones.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, layers of a tree which cover four-by-four [handbreadths]: the nazir shaves. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of his hands is on the other side and one hand is in the layer, the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Yose asked: If it separates from impurity it also should separate from purity; if it does not separate from impurity, it should not separate from purity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the bedroom and the nazir under the bed, the nazir shaves. Certainly if the corpse is under the bed and the nazir in the bedroom, does the nazir not shave? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse and the nazir are under the bed frame, under the belly of a camel, under the width of a gate, under the gutters, the nazir does not shave, nor for anything which is there for protection. Ḥizqiah heard it and said, they purified the dead! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the anteroom and the nazir in the dining hall, the nazir shaves; certainly if the corpse is in the dining hall and the nazir in the anteroom, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Mana asked, if it is a tent to separate it should be a tent to draw along; if it is not a tent to draw along, the impurity should disappear! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the impurity is under the outer half of the wall, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground of the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The nazir does not shave for most of the skeleton or most of the bones.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, layers of a tree which cover four-by-four [handbreadths]: the nazir shaves. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of his hands is on the other side and one hand is in the layer, the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Yose asked: If it separates from impurity it also should separate from purity; if it does not separate from impurity, it should not separate from purity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the bedroom and the nazir under the bed, the nazir shaves. Certainly if the corpse is under the bed and the nazir in the bedroom, does the nazir not shave? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse and the nazir are under the bed frame, under the belly of a camel, under the width of a gate, under the gutters, the nazir does not shave, nor for anything which is there for protection. Ḥizqiah heard it and said, they purified the dead! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the anteroom and the nazir in the dining hall, the nazir shaves; certainly if the corpse is in the dining hall and the nazir in the anteroom, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Mana asked, if it is a tent to separate it should be a tent to draw along; if it is not a tent to draw along, the impurity should disappear! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the impurity is under the outer half of the wall, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground of the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The nazir does not shave for most of the skeleton or most of the bones.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, layers of a tree which cover four-by-four [handbreadths]: the nazir shaves. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of his hands is on the other side and one hand is in the layer, the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Yose asked: If it separates from impurity it also should separate from purity; if it does not separate from impurity, it should not separate from purity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the bedroom and the nazir under the bed, the nazir shaves. Certainly if the corpse is under the bed and the nazir in the bedroom, does the nazir not shave? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse and the nazir are under the bed frame, under the belly of a camel, under the width of a gate, under the gutters, the nazir does not shave, nor for anything which is there for protection. Ḥizqiah heard it and said, they purified the dead! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the anteroom and the nazir in the dining hall, the nazir shaves; certainly if the corpse is in the dining hall and the nazir in the anteroom, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Mana asked, if it is a tent to separate it should be a tent to draw along; if it is not a tent to draw along, the impurity should disappear! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the impurity is under the outer half of the wall, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground of the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The nazir does not shave for most of the skeleton or most of the bones.

“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.” From here that the days of impurity fall away. Then should he invalidate? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi [] said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse.” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined.” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven.

“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.” From here that the days of impurity fall away. Then should he invalidate? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi [] said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse.” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined.” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven.

“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.” From here that the days of impurity fall away. Then should he invalidate? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi [] said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse.” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined.” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua,” etc. There, we have stated: “Two are impure from the dead, one is impure for seven days and one is impure by the impurity of evening. Three are impure from the dead, two are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall. Four are impure from the dead, three are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall. How is it for two? Any person who touches a corpse is impure for seven days; a person who touches him is impure until nightfall,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All are biblically [impure] for heave, but for entering the Sanctuary only the second impure who touched the first impure. What is the reason? “A person who would be impure and did not purify himself;” anybody needing purification is guilty for entering the Sanctuary; anybody not needing purification is not guilty for entering the Sanctuary. They objected: But a person who touches objects which touched a corpse needs purification, but is he the second? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects. The statement of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya [implies that] only the first is guilty. Since [for impurity of] a person from a person only the first is guilty, so here the first is guilty. Rebbi Yose said, only if he immersed himself. That is a statement of Rebbi, since Rebbi said, all impure persons remain impure until the are immersed in water.

Rebbi Illa said: He himself, who touched the corpse, is guilty. He said it and gave its reason: “who became impure,” that refers to the impurity of a human. But is there not a third? As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person a man is guilty for impurity in the Sanctuary. They objected: If objects touch the corpse, a human the objects, and objects the human. For impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects. Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The Tanna there disagrees with Rebbi Illa: “For an object made half of cement־earth and half of dung one is not guilty for coming to the Sanctuary” Because it is half of earth and half of dung; but if it were totally of earth, one would be guilty. Who is guilty? Not the one who touches it? Is he not the second who touches the first? Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he threw it. He answered him, about him who threw it we stated: For washing his body he is subject to extirpation, for washing his garments to the forty. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, do we not have the Mishnah in support of that first Tanna, as is stated: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” For the first, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for the second, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Jeremiah said, we were of the opinion that they disagree about a sacrifice, but one whips even the third, even the fourth. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah in opposition to Rebbi Jeremiah: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Joḥanan: It is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty.

Rebbi Illa said: He himself, who touched the corpse, is guilty. He said it and gave its reason: “who became impure,” that refers to the impurity of a human. But is there not a third? As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person a man is guilty for impurity in the Sanctuary. They objected: If objects touch the corpse, a human the objects, and objects the human. For impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects. Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The Tanna there disagrees with Rebbi Illa: “For an object made half of cement־earth and half of dung one is not guilty for coming to the Sanctuary” Because it is half of earth and half of dung; but if it were totally of earth, one would be guilty. Who is guilty? Not the one who touches it? Is he not the second who touches the first? Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he threw it. He answered him, about him who threw it we stated: For washing his body he is subject to extirpation, for washing his garments to the forty. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, do we not have the Mishnah in support of that first Tanna, as is stated: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” For the first, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for the second, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Jeremiah said, we were of the opinion that they disagree about a sacrifice, but one whips even the third, even the fourth. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah in opposition to Rebbi Jeremiah: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Joḥanan: It is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty.

HALAKHAH: “If a person said to two nezirim,” etc. Not only if he said to one of them, “I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was,” but even if he said, “I saw one of you vowing to be a nazir but I do not know which one of you it was,” both of them have to follow the rules of nazir because of his testimony. If they do not contradict him. But if they contradict him, this does not apply. If both of them contradict, it parallels the following: “If one witness says, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, he is pure. If two witnesses say, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, the two are believed more than he is, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, everybody is believed about himself.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: So is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah and the Sages declare pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah declares pure. The rabbis’ words support Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Gurion said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah said this only about an old impurity, for he can say to them, I had been impure but I purified myself, and we have stated: The same holds for eating suet; the same holds for entering the Sanctuary. Should they not accept his position for impurity? Because of the impurity of a nazir, could they not say, where is the sacrifice which you brought? Then should they not accept his position for heave? So far the questions of Rebbi Ḥanina.

HALAKHAH: “If a person said to two nezirim,” etc. Not only if he said to one of them, “I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was,” but even if he said, “I saw one of you vowing to be a nazir but I do not know which one of you it was,” both of them have to follow the rules of nazir because of his testimony. If they do not contradict him. But if they contradict him, this does not apply. If both of them contradict, it parallels the following: “If one witness says, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, he is pure. If two witnesses say, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, the two are believed more than he is, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, everybody is believed about himself.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: So is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah and the Sages declare pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah declares pure. The rabbis’ words support Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Gurion said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah said this only about an old impurity, for he can say to them, I had been impure but I purified myself, and we have stated: The same holds for eating suet; the same holds for entering the Sanctuary. Should they not accept his position for impurity? Because of the impurity of a nazir, could they not say, where is the sacrifice which you brought? Then should they not accept his position for heave? So far the questions of Rebbi Ḥanina.

If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is (not) whipped; within the last 30 days, he is [] whipped. The one coming from the general population cannot be whipped, either for the (second) or the last period. So far, if he was warned separately for each period. If they warned him for both together this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who disagreed about the two days of holiday in the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts warning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept warning in case of a doubt.

If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is (not) whipped; within the last 30 days, he is [] whipped. The one coming from the general population cannot be whipped, either for the (second) or the last period. So far, if he was warned separately for each period. If they warned him for both together this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who disagreed about the two days of holiday in the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts warning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept warning in case of a doubt.

(The community) [A person] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the abyss, one sends him on a far journey. (A nazir) [The community] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should be presented in their doubt; Rebbi Hoshaia said, it should be made in impurity. The great Rebbi Hoshaia also agrees that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referrred only to restrictions.

(The community) [A person] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the abyss, one sends him on a far journey. (A nazir) [The community] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should be presented in their doubt; Rebbi Hoshaia said, it should be made in impurity. The great Rebbi Hoshaia also agrees that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referrred only to restrictions.

(The community) [A person] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the abyss, one sends him on a far journey. (A nazir) [The community] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should be presented in their doubt; Rebbi Hoshaia said, it should be made in impurity. The great Rebbi Hoshaia also agrees that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referrred only to restrictions.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew, for we find that our forefathers in the desert received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh. But for him who said that they circumcised on the tenth, they did not count sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rebbi Abin said, did they not have to count for sprinkling when uncircumcised in any case? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that an uncircumcised Cohen was sprinkled and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Passover sacrifices in the evening.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are Ben Zoma’s words, but the words of the Sages: Forever is he definitively [impure] until he heave the reparation sacrifice. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Why is he definitively [impure] until he heave the reparation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? We find several reparation sacrifices which are pushed aside because of doubts! As we have stated there: “If a reparation sacrifice was mixed up with a well-being sacrifice, Rebbi Simeon says that both should be slaughtered in the North and eaten following the more restrictive rules. They said to him, one does not cause sacrifices to become invalid.

What is the status of his hair? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his hair is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his hair is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Do they disagree about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir or do they disagree about a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease? If you say that they disagree about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir, then for a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If you say that they disagree about a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease, then for a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir everybody agrees that it is permitted. For Rebbi Jeremiah it was obvious that they disagreed about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir. Therefore, for a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease everybody agrees that it is permitted

What is the status of his hair? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his hair is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his hair is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Do they disagree about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir or do they disagree about a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease? If you say that they disagree about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir, then for a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If you say that they disagree about a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease, then for a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir everybody agrees that it is permitted. For Rebbi Jeremiah it was obvious that they disagreed about a sufferer from skin disease who made a vow of nazir. Therefore, for a nazir who became a sufferer from skin disease everybody agrees that it is permitted

Does the obligatory shaving push aside the rules of voluntary shaving? Let us hear from the following: “He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way sufferers from skin disease shave.” But there one could say, maybe it was an obligatory shaving. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yudan: The Mishnah says so; “for Rebbi Simeon says, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead.” Is he not forbidden because of “do not destroy”? Samuel bar Abba said, explain it if he was a eunuch. But did we not state “the beard”? How can you say, a eunuch? You have only what Rebbi Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he removed it from bottom to top it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose bar Abin said, there is no difference between bottom to top or top to bottom.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna of “when he had shaved, before he shaved”? Rebbi Eliezer! But for the rabbis it would be before the blood was sprinkled for him. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “The nazir shall shave the hair of his crowned head.” The Torah made his nezirut dependent on his hair.

So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]: “If a person dies suddenly on him”. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open.

Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joshia, since Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground below the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here on the side, there on place. Rebbi Ezra said in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Even if you say in both cases on the side, in both cases on place. What means “impure”? Impure and he does not shave?