ananiah

After him repaired Benjamin and Hashub over against their house. After him repaired Azariah the son of Maaseiah the son of Ananiah by his house.

And at Anathoth, Nob, Ananiah,

We add, in the next place, that neither is every one that prophesies holy, nor every one that casts out devils religious: for even Balaam the son of Beor the prophet did prophesy, though he was himself ungodly; as also did Caiaphas, the falsely-named high priest. Nay, the devil foretells many things, and the demons, about Him; and yet for all that, there is not a spark of piety in them: for they are oppressed with ignorance, by reason of their voluntary wickedness. It is manifest, therefore, that the ungodly, although they prophesy, do not by their prophesying cover their own impiety; nor will those who cast out demons be sanctified by the demons being made subject to them: for they only mock one another, as they do who play childish tricks for mirth, and destroy those who give heed to them. For neither is a wicked king any longer a king, but a tyrant; nor is a bishop oppressed with ignorance or an evil disposition a bishop, but falsely so called, being not one sent out by God, but by men, as Ananiah and Samœah in Jerusalem, and Zedekiah and Achiah the false prophets in Babylon. And indeed Balaam the prophet, when he had corrupted Israel by Baal-peor, suffered punishment; and Caiaphas at last was his own murderer; and the sons of Sceva, endeavouring to cast out demons, were wounded by them, and fled away in an unseemly manner; and the kings of Israel and of Judah, when they became impious, suffered all sorts of punishments. It is therefore evident how bishops and presbyters, also falsely so called, will not escape the judgment of God. For it will be said to them even now: O you priests that despise my name, I will deliver you up to the slaughter, as I did Zedekiah and Achiah, whom the king of Babylon fried in a frying-pan, as says Jeremiah the prophet. We say these things, not in contempt of true prophecies, for we know that they are wrought in holy men by the inspiration of God, but to put a stop to the boldness of vainglorious men; and add this withal, that from such as these God takes away His grace: for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Now Silas and Agabus prophesied in our times; yet did they not equal themselves to the apostles, nor did they exceed their own measures though they were beloved of God. Now women prophesied also. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron, and after her Deborah, and after these Huldah and Judith — the former under Josiah, the latter under Darius. The mother of the Lord did also prophesy, and her kinswoman Elisabeth, and Anna; and in our time the daughters of Philip; yet were not these elated against their husbands, but preserved their own measures. Wherefore if among you also there be a man or a woman, and such a one obtains any gift, let him be humble, that God may be pleased with him. For says He: Upon whom will I look, but upon him that is humble and quiet, and trembles at my words?

Rebbi Ismael did formulate: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sages all are severe. You can realize that this is so since we have stated (Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:5): “If he says there is no obligation of Tefillin against the words of the Torah he is not criminally liable. If he says that Tefillin have five sections, to add to the words of the Sages, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Ada, in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets, since it is written (Micah 2:6): “Do not preach, they preach; Do not preach to those, that shame does not reach you.” And it is written (Micah 2:11) “I shall preach to you for wine and liquor.” The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two of his palmatars to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήθιον, do not believe him. About the other one he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal, believe him without seal and σημαντήθιον. So about a prophet is written (Deut. 13:2) “He gives you a sign or miracle.” But here it is written (Deut. 17:11): “According to the teachings that they will teach you”.

Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ḥelbo. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Ḥelbo comes to it in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Ḥaifa: A person has to turn his face to the wall in order to pray. What is the reason? (Is. 38:2) “Hezekiah turned his face to the wall.” Which wall did he lift his eyes to? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he lifted his eyes to Raḥab’s wall, (Jos. 2:15) “For her house was on the wall of the fortification.” He said before Him: Master of the world, Raḥab the inn-keeper saved two souls for You, and see how many souls You saved for her. [That is what is written (Jos.6:23): “The youths came, etc.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai said, even if her family was 200 persons strong and they furthermore were related to another 200 families, all of these were saved by her merit.] My forefathers who brought to You all these proselytes, so much more. Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Pappus said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the Temple. (Ez. 43:8) “When they put their lintel next to My lintel, their doorposts next to My doorpost, with the wall between Me and them.” They were important people, they could not go and pray in the Temple every time, so they prayed in their house and the Holy One, praise to Him, considers it as if they had prayed in the Temple. My fathers who built for You all this glory, so much more. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the woman from Sunem, as it was said (2Kings 4:10): “Let us make a small upper storey on the wall”. He said before Him: Master of the world, the woman from Sunem made one wall for Elisha and You revived her son. My forefathers who built for You all this glory, so much more that You should give me my life. The rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. (Jer. 4:19) “My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar.” He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs that You gave me and I did not find one of them I offended You with; so much more that You should give me my life.

“If the one standing before the arc makes a mistake.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: If one erred in one of the first three benedictions, he starts anew. Ada bar bar Ḥana, Ganiva in the name of Rav: If one erred in one of the last three benedictions, he returns to “Temple Service.” Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If one erred in one of the first three benedictions, he starts anew; in one of the last three benedictions, he returns to “Temple Service”; if he erred and he cannot remember where he erred he returns to the place that is clear to him.

Does one have to recite a benediction for the wonders that were done for his father or his teacher? Or if he was a famous person like Joab ben Ẓeruiah and his companions? Or a man through whom the Name of Heaven was sanctified, for example Ḥananiah, Mishael, and Azariah? About wonders done for one of the tribes? According to him who said that each tribe is called “assembly”, one has to recite the benediction; but according to him who said that only all tribes together are called “assembly”, one does not have to recite the benediction.

Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Isaac in another version. Flesh and blood has a protector. When they tell him, your client was arrested, he will say: I will protect him. When they tell him, he is going before a court, he will say: I will protect him. When they tell him, he is being thrown into fire, where is he and where is his protector? But the Holy One, praise to Him, saved Ḥananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the fiery oven; this is what is written (Dan. 3:14): “Nebucadnezzar declared and said, praised be the God of Shadrakh, Meshakh, and Abed Nego, etc.”

Rebbi Zeīra, son of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Ps. 146:5): “Happy is he whom the God of Jacob helps.” What is written after that (Ps. 146:6): “He makes Heaven and Earth.” What has one to do with the other? But a king of flesh and blood needs a protector, he rules over one district but not over another district. A universal ruler rules over dry land; does he rule over the ocean? But the Holy One, praise to Him, rules over ocean and dry land. He saves in the ocean from the water and on the dry land from the fire. He saved Moses from Pharao’s sword. He saved Jonah from inside the fish, Ḥananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, from the fiery oven, Daniel from the lions’ den. That is what is written (Ps. 146:6) “He makes Heaven and Earth, the oceans and all that is in them.”

Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said: When the wind goes out into the world, the Holy One, praise to Him, breaks it on mountains, lets it stumble on hills, and tells it: Be careful not to hurt my creatures. What is the reason? (Is. 57:16) “The wind becomes faint before Me.” He makes it tired, as one says (Jonah 2:8): “When I am fainting.” All that why? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa (Is. 57:16): “And I made souls;” because of the souls that I made.

Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Samuel: One makes no inferences from a ruling. Everybody agrees that one makes no inferences from an action. Rebbi Mana said to him, that means somebody who does not understand, but he who understands may act. He said to him, whether one understands or one does not understand, if there is a disagreement. But if there is no disagreement, whether one understands or one does not understand.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Immi asked in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Think of it, if there were only one ear! Before he cut, there was no obligation; after he cut, there will be nothing left! Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it if there was one stalk with five ears!

From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired with guaranteed property, by money, document, or possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Madon was in Jerusalem, rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place, but here the real estate even was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: All trees are dangerous. Does Rebbi Meïr not infer from “harvest” while the rabbis likewise infer from “harvest?” Everybody infers from “harvest”, except that Rebbi Meïr says that all trees are dangerous and the rabbis say only the climbing vine and the date palm are dangerous. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It has happened that five brothers died climbing five smooth nut trees.

Clarification. Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish passed by the orchard of Doron. The sharecropper brought them one peach; they and their donkeys ate from it and left some over. They estimated it to be like a dish from Kefar Ḥananiah that contains a seah of lentils. After a time they passed by there, he brought them two or three peaches in one hand. They said to him, we would like some from that tree. He said to them, they are from it. On that, they quoted (Ps. 107:34): “A fruit-bearing land into salt flats, because of the evil of its inhabitants.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta said, it happened that Rebbi Jehudah said to his son in Sikhnin: Go and bring us dried figs from the barrel. He went and put his hand into the barrel, found it full of honey and said: Father, it is a barrel of honey. He said to him, put your hands deep into it and you will bring up the dried figs. It happened that Rebbi Yose said to his son in Sepphoris: Go and bring us dried figs from the upper floor. He went and found that honey was floating on the upper floor. Rebbi Ḥananiah was a dealer in bee’s honey; he also had honey obtained by roasting. After a time they passed by him. He said to them, in order not to trick you, you should know that the honey that I gave you was from roasting. They said, from that one we want more because it is good for our purposes. He set aside its value and built with it the House of Study of Sepphoris.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: A quarter of rice, an ukla of spices, a pound of vegetables, three qab carob, half a log of wine, a quarter of a log of olive oil, ten nuts, five peaches, two pomegranates, one etrog. What is the reason? (Deut. 26:12) “They shall eat in your gates and be satiated,” give him to satisfy him. Ḥizqiah asked his father: From where do we get all these amounts? He said to them, a pebble supports a tower. Rebbi Ḥananiah was sitting before Rebbi Ilaï, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, until he said to him, is it not depraved to destroy instead of building up?

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may free his ṭevel with one seah of ṭevel. How does he do it? He brings one seah of ṭevel and declares it to be Second (Tithe), redeems it, and returns to make it heave of the tithe for any other place. Ulla descended there and said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but they united against him. Rav Sheshet objected, does not a Mishnah contradict: “If there were before him two baskets full of figs.” And we have stated about this: “He takes from the second basket two figs and two tenths, and a tenth of a tenth.” Why can he not take two figs, declare them to be Second (Tithe), redeem them, and return to make them heave of the tithe for any other place? Rebbi Mana said, is not the Second Tithe in the first basket containing First Tithe of the second basket? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, there it is ṭevel for the First and Second. But here, Second Tithe that was put in order after First, can you return and make it First?

A person brought a back-pack of leeks to Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, go and ask Ḥananiah ben Samuel who knows statements about this. He went and asked. He said, they did not show me a statement, but he told me an Amoraic tradition, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon disagree: one says after its place of production, the other says, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu explained: Rebbi said, after its place of production and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi said, after its place of production, and they taught him following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand. This means for back packs, but for animal loads everybody agrees after its place of production. If its place of production and of current placement are free but he is going to transport it through forbidden territory, that forbidden territory is as if he did not traverse it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, between Rebbi and his colleague, practice follows Rebbi. But Rebbi Jonah said, even Rebbi with Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? He said to him, what do you want from Rebbi Joḥanan! Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient regarding the Sabbatical, which is of their words. Some want to say, the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is added to that of Rebbi and they form a majority against Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon.

“ The administrators of charity should not publicly announce on a holiday in the way they announce on weekdays, but they collect in private, carry it in their bosom, and distribute for each quarter separately. The administrators of the charity chest should not be inquisitive in the courtyards of those who eat from the yield of the Sabbatical year. If one gave them bread it is permitted, because Jews are not suspected of giving anything other than money or eggs.” Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: That means, at a place where people sow but do not eat. Since they are not suspected to eat, a fortiori not to feed.

“If somebody brought out Second Tithe from his house to somebody and said: ‘It is redeemed,’ he is trustworthy; ‘redeem for me and yourself,’ he is not trustworthy.” The baraita is Rebbi Eliezer’s, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s.

“Lettuce and garden lettuce.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, roof lettuce. Simeon, the son of Rebbi Avi, said, Antiochian (lettuce.) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, sweet yase. Endives may be eaten raw, field endives are ‘ulthin. Leeks. Fields leeks are κεφαλωτόν.

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

MISHNAH: If somebody plants two rows, he should not sow there unless there are eight cubits between them. If there were three rows, he should not sow there unless there are sixteen cubits between one row and the next. Rebbi Eliezer said in the name of Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai: He should not sow there unless there are sixteen cubits between one row and the next, even if the middle row dried up. But if he planted new [vines], it would be permitted with eight cubits. If somebody plants his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits, he may bring seeds there. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that somebody in Ṣalmon planted his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits. He turned the growth of two rows towards one another and sowed the ploughed area. The next year, he turned the growth to the side that had been sown and sowed what was fallow. This came before the Sages and they permitted it. Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Meïr say that this is permitted even for someone who plants his vineyard spaced eight cubits.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said to them: Those about which you say that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, are the essence of the vineyard! Rebbi Ḥananiah said, that applies in the case where there are six parallel six. But if there are five parallel five, everybody agrees that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent. Rebbi Mana said, that means if there are five parallel five. But if there are six parallel six, if you disregard the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, these are like those! What does that mean which we have stated: One disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent? Rebbi Huna said, that one is permitted to draw them over his seeds. Rebbi Mana said, that supports what Rebbi Yose had said, that if one sows within six hand-breadths all is forbidden, outside of six hand-breadths single vines are permitted and a vineyard is forbidden

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.

“And grapes once they have grown to the size of white beans.” Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, because it is written (Deut. 22:9): “And the produce of the vineyard.” So is the Mishnah: “They do not become sanctified”.

Rebbi commanded three things on his death-bed: My widow should not move from my house; do not eulogize me in small towns; and he who served me during my lifetime should serve me in my death. “My widow should not move from my house,” is that not a Mishnah? “The widow who said, I cannot possibly move from my husband’s house …” Rebbi Dositheos said, that they should not say, this is the house of the patriarchate and must serve the patriarchate. Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, as we have stated: “She lives in the houses just as she lived while her husband was overseas, she uses silver and golden vessels just as she used to while her husband was overseas, she is fed just as she was fed while her husband was overseas.” “Do not eulogize me in small towns” because of the quarrels. “He who served me during my lifetime should serve me in my death;” Rebbi Ḥananiah from Sepphoris said, for example Yose Ephrati and Joseph from Haifa. Rebbi Ḥizqiah added, do not use many shrouds on me and let my coffin have holes at the bottom. These words say that Rebbi was buried in a single shroud since Rebbi said, not as a man left, he will come. But the rabbis say, just as a man left, he will come. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: The garment that went with a person to the grave will come back with him. What is the reason? (Job 38:14) “The seal turns itself around like clay, they appear in dress.” Antoninus asked Rebbi, what is the meaning of “The seal turns itself around like clay?” He said to him, He Who brings the generation clothes it.

HALAKHAH: “Saplings and gourds, etc.” That is only if there are more saplings than gourds. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Rebbi Hillel asked, is that not reasonable only for Greek gourd? Rebbi Mana objected, did we not state: “Three green melons, three gourds, and four saplings go together and one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them.” It fits only for the last sentence: Rabban Gamliel says, if there are ten gourds in a bet seah, one ploughs the entire bet seah until New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Rebbi Hillel asked, is that not reasonable only for Greek gourd?

HALAKHAH: “Saplings and gourds, etc.” That is only if there are more saplings than gourds. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Rebbi Hillel asked, is that not reasonable only for Greek gourd? Rebbi Mana objected, did we not state: “Three green melons, three gourds, and four saplings go together and one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them.” It fits only for the last sentence: Rabban Gamliel says, if there are ten gourds in a bet seah, one ploughs the entire bet seah until New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Rebbi Hillel asked, is that not reasonable only for Greek gourd?

“When it forms its fruit.” When it forms many fruits. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, when its uppermost fruit is fully formed, it immediately dries up. About this we have stated: Their statements are close to each other.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The Mishnah refers to the prohibition of the two terms. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” Does this not refer to the prohibition of the two terms, so here also about the prohibition of the two terms. Rebbi Shammai inquired: If this is about the prohibition of the two terms, did we state that one is permitted to plough but forbidden to build? So it must refer to the permission of the two terms. If it refers to the permission of the two terms, we have stated: “But he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.” Rebbi Mana said, is Rebbi Shammai correct? In the first case, one is permitted to plough because that prepares for the year after the Sabbatical. It is forbidden to build since that prepares for the Sabbatical. The Mishnah does not say so, “but he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.”

There, we have stated (Mishnah ‘Uqeẓin 3:6): “Unripe figs and grapes, Rebbi Aqiba said they may become impure by the impurity of food; Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said only after they come to the period of tithing.” We have stated here “immediately” but is it “not immediately”? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Mishnah speaks only about unripe figs, but unripe fruit of any other kind may not become impure by the impurity of food until it reaches the period of tithing. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah implies this: “Unripe figs when they started to be radiant one eats them with his bread in the field.” Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees about the Sabbatical year. “Everybody agrees,” the colleagues said that the figs do not become impure by the impurity of food.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina kissed the cliffs of Acco and said, up to here is the Land of Israel. Rebbi Zeїra crossed the Jordan in his clothing. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba rolled himself in the step of Tiberias. The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya weighed rocks. Rebbi Ḥananiah weighed earth lumps to fulfill what was said (Ps. 102:19): “For Your servants desired its stones and they loved its dust.”

There, we have stated: “From vegetables”, he is permitted field vegetables because these have an additional name. We have stated on that: “He who makes a vow to abstain from vegetables in the Sabbatical is also forbidden field vegetables.” Rebbi Crispus stated the reason in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: That means, as long as Rebbi did not permit to import vegetables into the Land. But since Rebbi permitted to import vegetables into the Land there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina says, endives are important enough to become impure as food in the Seventh year. That means, as long as Rebbi did not permit. But since he permitted, there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle.

Did not Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina say: Endives are important enough in the Sabbatical to become susceptible to impurity of food? The reason was spelled out: This is, before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land, there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the other years of the sabbatical cycle. Then they should not be important unless somebody thinks about them! Do we find anything on which from the start the sanctity of the Sabbatical (falls) [does not fall] but in the end the sanctity of the Sabbatical (does not fall) [may fall] on them? They objected: “The sanctity of the Sabbatical does not fall on calamint, hyssop, and thyme if one collected them as wood. If he considered them as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he collected them first as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them immediately.

MISHNAH: There are three regions for removals, Judea, Transjordan, and Galilee. Each of them has three subregions: Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee, and the Valley. From Kefar Ḥananiah upwards, everywhere no sycamores can grow, is Upper Galilee. From Kefar Ḥananiah downwards, everwhere sycamores do grow, is Lower Galilee. And the district of Tiberias and the Valley. In Jehudah the hills, the lowland, and the Southland. The lowlands of Lydda are like the Southern lowlands, its hills are like King’s Mountain. From Bet Ḥoron to the Sea is one domain. Why did they mention three regions? That in each one may eat until the last produce has vanished. Rebbi Simeon says, they mentioned three regions only for Judea; all other regions follow King’s Mountain. All regions are one for olives and dates.

MISHNAH: There are three regions for removals, Judea, Transjordan, and Galilee. Each of them has three subregions: Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee, and the Valley. From Kefar Ḥananiah upwards, everywhere no sycamores can grow, is Upper Galilee. From Kefar Ḥananiah downwards, everwhere sycamores do grow, is Lower Galilee. And the district of Tiberias and the Valley. In Jehudah the hills, the lowland, and the Southland. The lowlands of Lydda are like the Southern lowlands, its hills are like King’s Mountain. From Bet Ḥoron to the Sea is one domain. Why did they mention three regions? That in each one may eat until the last produce has vanished. Rebbi Simeon says, they mentioned three regions only for Judea; all other regions follow King’s Mountain. All regions are one for olives and dates.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The argument of the House of Shammai is that he is like one who says: This shall be heave for itself and what is below it. Rebbi Ḥananiah wanted to say, of its own kind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not accept that. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed and the rest becomes profane, may profane free ṭevel? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, it is simultaneous. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed together with the rest. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is convincing for the Great Heave where one must give heave from what is earmarked. But heave of the tithe must be defined by measure, weight, or count.

Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The argument of the House of Shammai is that he is like one who says: This shall be heave for itself and what is below it. Rebbi Ḥananiah wanted to say, of its own kind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not accept that. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed and the rest becomes profane, may profane free ṭevel? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, it is simultaneous. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed together with the rest. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is convincing for the Great Heave where one must give heave from what is earmarked. But heave of the tithe must be defined by measure, weight, or count.

Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The argument of the House of Shammai is that he is like one who says: This shall be heave for itself and what is below it. Rebbi Ḥananiah wanted to say, of its own kind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not accept that. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed and the rest becomes profane, may profane free ṭevel? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, it is simultaneous. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed together with the rest. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is convincing for the Great Heave where one must give heave from what is earmarked. But heave of the tithe must be defined by measure, weight, or count.

What is the basis of his giving heave, on basis of their oil or as solid food? Rebbi Yoḥanan said, this was brought from Ḥilfai: “Rebbi said as food, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said on basis of their oil, excluding the pits. Everybody agrees that one gives heave for pickled olives as food but not including their pits. Ḥananiah asked, is this the same for the Sabbath? It was found stated: “Rebbi said, by a quartarius; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, by the size of a dried fig.”

Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Hillel: We have stated in support of the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” And we have stated: “If one gave oil as heave for table olives, olives for table olives, wine for table grapes, or grapes for table grapes when he changed his mind to press them he does not have to give heave.” Because he changed his mind! Therefore, if he did not change his mind he has to give a second heave.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hoshaiah, Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting [there]. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening; they went and asked him. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, maybe that statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me. When they came back, there was Rebbi Hila standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”

You say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Meїr will not agree. But did we not state: “When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure.” And if it follows Rebbi Meїr, whether it contains enough to lift it or does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure? In addition, from what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication.” A person says “this is not the implication” only if he agrees with the premise. How is that? There, the Torah cares about the money of the Jews, here what can you say? Does he not here also cayse him to lose money since he needs fire wood to burn each lot separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah, the Second of the Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Yasa said, where do Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis disagree? If it is ṭevel by their words. But for ṭevel by biblical decree, the rabbis also will agree.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abin: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. There, we have stated: “If he put it in a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv, lower than ten hand-breadths it is an eruv.” Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, make an eruv for me! But here, he says I shall tithe for you. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall make an eruv for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says tithe for me, he has to be with him.

From where are tithes taken, from the house or from the field? Let us hear from the following: If a fellow died and in his estate was a chest full of grain, even if he filled it the same day it is supposed to be in order. Is it impossible that he should not have been of clouded mind at least for an hour? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he died with a clear mind. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “One tenth which I shall separate in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should distribute it to the poor.” That means, from the house. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from the following: “If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person;” that means, from the house. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following: “(Deut. 26:13) ‘From the house’, that is ḥallah.” That means, from the field.

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if all were of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it.

It was stated: “One does not buy Sabbatical [produce] with tithe money.” Rebbi Yose said, that is a disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, that is the opinion of everybody. The eaters of heave are careful. Rebbi Ḥananiah objected before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state: “If they were mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of Cohanim they should be eaten.” And we have stated on that, they should be eaten following the more stringent rules. He said to him, eaters of the Pesaḥ sacrifice in its time are as careful as the eaters of heave. You should know that this is so since we have stated: “One roasts meat, onion, or egg only that they should be roasted”, but we have stated: “One lowers the Pesaḥ sacrifice into the oven at nightfall.”

Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is difficult about the House of Shammai! What is the difference between this and five sacks on a threshing floor? For five [separate] sacks on one threshing floor, can one not give heave and tithe from one for the other?

Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

The House of Shammai say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10. Bar Qappara stated, both for demay and for certain 11. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom taught what Bar Qappara had stated. The House of Shammai follows Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagreed. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, one does not give tithe to Cohanim but Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one gives tithe to Cohanim. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah objected to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You shall eat it everywhere”, come and eat it by a grave! He said to him, what means “everywhere”? In the courtyard of the Temple. He retorted, but is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You and your house”? Does a woman enter the courtyard of the Temple? Rebbi Abba understood it from the following occasion: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was used to take tithes from a certain garden. That garden had two exits, one to a place of impurity and one open to a place of purity. Rebbi Aqiba went to him and said, open this one and lock the other one. If he will come, tell him to come by that way. He also said, if he sends a student, tell him “you” is written. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah heard this and said, that is Aqiba ben Joseph’s whip. At that moment, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah returned all tithes he had taken. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, for dinner one has to fill up completely with wood fibers; any coal which does not cause a burn at the beginning will not cause one.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagreed. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, one does not give tithe to Cohanim but Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one gives tithe to Cohanim. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah objected to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You shall eat it everywhere”, come and eat it by a grave! He said to him, what means “everywhere”? In the courtyard of the Temple. He retorted, but is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You and your house”? Does a woman enter the courtyard of the Temple? Rebbi Abba understood it from the following occasion: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was used to take tithes from a certain garden. That garden had two exits, one to a place of impurity and one open to a place of purity. Rebbi Aqiba went to him and said, open this one and lock the other one. If he will come, tell him to come by that way. He also said, if he sends a student, tell him “you” is written. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah heard this and said, that is Aqiba ben Joseph’s whip. At that moment, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah returned all tithes he had taken. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, for dinner one has to fill up completely with wood fibers; any coal which does not cause a burn at the beginning will not cause one.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagreed. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, one does not give tithe to Cohanim but Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one gives tithe to Cohanim. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah objected to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You shall eat it everywhere”, come and eat it by a grave! He said to him, what means “everywhere”? In the courtyard of the Temple. He retorted, but is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You and your house”? Does a woman enter the courtyard of the Temple? Rebbi Abba understood it from the following occasion: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was used to take tithes from a certain garden. That garden had two exits, one to a place of impurity and one open to a place of purity. Rebbi Aqiba went to him and said, open this one and lock the other one. If he will come, tell him to come by that way. He also said, if he sends a student, tell him “you” is written. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah heard this and said, that is Aqiba ben Joseph’s whip. At that moment, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah returned all tithes he had taken. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, for dinner one has to fill up completely with wood fibers; any coal which does not cause a burn at the beginning will not cause one.

That means that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. There is a difference, since Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah was there. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it means that Rabban Gamliel had to transfer. Rebbi Joshua said, for produce standing on the ground. Even if Rabban Gamliel’s box were standing in Rebbi Joshua’s house and he would say, he should acquire its tithe, would he have done anything if he did not label it?

That means that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. There is a difference, since Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah was there. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it means that Rabban Gamliel had to transfer. Rebbi Joshua said, for produce standing on the ground. Even if Rabban Gamliel’s box were standing in Rebbi Joshua’s house and he would say, he should acquire its tithe, would he have done anything if he did not label it?

“Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated”. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zwieback. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Agul in the name of Ḥizqiah said boqrlṭa. That you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said, dough for the sick is obligated for ḥallah, that you should not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah.

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if one of them was of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it not fully processed.

They wanted to say, according to him who said, there it is obligated, also here it is obligated; according to him who said, there it is exempt, also here it is exempt. Even according to him who says, there it is exempt, here it is obligated for when Israel entered they became obligated. It is written (2K. 14:25): “He reëstablished the borders of Israel from Lebo-Ḥamat to the sea of the Arabah, following the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had said through Jonah ben Amittai, the prophet from Gat-Ḥepher.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said that all that Joshua had conquered this one conquered. The other said, more than Joshua had conquered this one conquered. Rebbi Sidor stated, in support of Rebbi Mana: Few days only did Israel hold on to this land.

Rebbi Jonah asked: Is it the same for animal tithe? As you say there, if he had five obligated ones in Kefar Ḥananiah, five obligated in Kefar Othnay, and five free ones in Sepphoris? As you say there, if something of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine; is it the same in this case? If you say that ḥallah is different since there it bites, are these 16 mil not as if it did bite? We find ḥallah from practice, we do not find animal tithe from practice.

“He who buys from a baker in Syria has to separate ḥallah as demay, the words of Rabban Gamliel, but the Sages say he does not have to separate ḥallah as demay.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Rabban Gamliel said it right, what is the reason of the Sages? He said to him, just as Israel are not suspected in matters of heave in the Land, so they are not suspected in matters of ḥallah in Syria.

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “ He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

Why did they not decree about vicia? On their shoes it came out with them from Alexandria. When did they decree about black vetch? Rebbi Yose says, in a famine; Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi: In David’s time. They said, both are the same.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: If a young tree was attached to an old one, the young one was cleansed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, the Mishnah says so: “Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted.” Should we not say that maybe the young tree formed roots before it was well connected to the old one? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel: This follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says it connects well more quickly than it forms roots.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: If a young tree was attached to an old one, the young one was cleansed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, the Mishnah says so: “Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted.” Should we not say that maybe the young tree formed roots before it was well connected to the old one? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel: This follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says it connects well more quickly than it forms roots.

From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover (which is on the Ark of the Covenant)from between the two Cherubim. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it is only make a golden wreath as its frame all around? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A person should not sit before the barber,” etc. We have stated “close to the afternoon prayers.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, close to darkness. Our Mishnah needs Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita and Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita needs our Mishnah. If Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that he means exactly darkness but not the afternoon prayers. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary. But if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that everywhere “afternoon prayers” is stated it means afternoon prayers, and everywhere “darkness” is stated it means darkness. Since we stated “afternoon prayers” and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “darkness”, this implies that “darkness” stated later refers to the time of afternoon prayers. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother said, our Mishnah refers to the vulgar, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated to fellows. The rabbis of Caesarea say our Mishnah is following Rebbi Jehudah, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the rabbis.

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

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

MISHNAH: These are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon, when they came to visit him. They voted and the House of Shammai had the majority over the House of Hillel; eighteen items they decided on that day.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “These are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon, when they came to visit him,” etc. “This day was hard for Israel like the day on which the Golden C alf was made. Rebbi Eliezer said, on that day they filled the bushel to overflow. Rebbi Joshua said, on that day they filled the bushel to the rim. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, if it was deficient and they filled it it would have been reasonable, as with an amphora full of nuts; if you fill it with sesame seeds it will be strengthened. Rebbi Joshua said to him, if it had been full and they diminished it, it would have been reasonable, as with an amphora filled with oil; if you add water to it it dilutes the oil.”

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥananiah bent it in the name of Rav: Cuttings from date palms below and wood on top, when the fire appears between them it is permitted.

“Nor with fat.” Rav Berona said, one mixes some oil with it and kindles. Yose asked, where do we hold? If it was made into a paste, even if he did not mix it with oil, as Samuel stated, any which one turns into a fluid and it does not jell is a paste. But if it was not made into a paste, even if he mixes with oil. There came Rav Ḥananiah, Rav Berona in the name of Rav: One may kindle with liquefied fat and fish innards. Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Ashi failed to come before Rav. He asked him, where have you been? He answered. I was trying to get olive oil. He asked him, do you not have innards of fish?

“If the potter combined it from the outset it is permitted since it is one vessel.” There is a difference because all is one, if he combined it by lime or gypsum. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection. It was stated: One wick in two cups, in two pots, in two trays is forbidden; Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection.

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

Ganiva said, he was continuing teaching as ruling. [Rebbi Jonah from Bostra asked, if he was continuing teaching as ruling,] is that what we were stating: “against the will of the Sages”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi (Rav) [following Bar] Delaya stated, they told him, either remove yourself from between us or remove the strip from between its horns. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he was shielding himself against them. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it went out once and his teeth became black from the fasts [and mortification]. Rebbi Idi from (his staff) [Ḥotra] said, it was his wife. And from where that his wife is called “calf”? “Had you not ploughed with my calf you would not have solved my riddle.” There, they are saying, it was his neighbor. Is anybody punished for his neighbor’s behavior? Rebbi Qiris from (Didyma) [Irma]: To teach you that if anybody has the possibility to protest and he does not protest, the damage is attached to him.

There are Tannaim who switch. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan as our Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, anything which heals is not forbidden because of ways of the Emorite. “דרגי דרגיבת because of ways of the Emorite; Rebbi Jehudah says because of the idol Dagon, and Dagon’s head and his two hands. דונו דני because of ways of the Emorite; Rebbi Jehudah says because of the idol Dan, they say, by the life of your god Dan. No no, because of ways of the Emorite; Rebbi Jehudah says because idolatry, they say no God, turn away from us, we have no desire to know Your ways.”

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar, this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says, on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says, as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship. (He retorted,) them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not) separate. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct.

And why was it stated twice? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, if there were two shallows, one which was used as a thoroughfare and one used by the public only in case of emergency. That you should not say, since the public are using it only in case of emergency it is not public domain but private domain, therefore it was necessary to say that it is public domain.

They wanted to say, he who said, if the distance between them is less than four [hand-breadths], even if they are not ten [hand-breadths] high. He who said, if they are ten [hand-breadths] high, even if the distance between them is four. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, only if the airspace of karmelit be within ten [hand-breadths].

From a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one transports neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. If it was less than this it is permitted. What is the difference between a rock and a ship? A ship rises and falls; a rock stays in its place. But is it not karmelit? Is it permitted to move on karmelit only four cubits? Rebbi Ila said, it refers to the beginning: “from a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it.” If it was higher it becomes like a fence made for agriculture where inside one is permitted to transport only four cubits. If it was lower one transports from it to the sea and from the sea onto it, and one transports up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, two adjacent karmeliot, may one transport from one to the other? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since the sea surrounds it from all sides it is considered as a single karmelit.

There, we have stated: “A door-bolt, Rebbi Joshua says one may slip it off one door and hang it on another on the Sabbath. Rebbi Tarphon says, it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they say, the Mishnah is about a courtyard without an eruv. If it is about a courtyard without an eruv, is that what we did state, “it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥananiah reaches it in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: they formulated before implements were permitted. (If they formulated before implements were permitted,) is that what we have stated: “it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard”? Like the “three implements which can be carried in a courtyard: a small knife, the chopper of fig cake, and the soup ladle.”

“If there is a door-frame even though it is wider than ten cubits there is no need to reduce.” Ḥananiah bar Shelemia was sitting stating this to Ḥiyya, Rav’s son. Rav put out his head from the window and said, it is not so. He told him, but was it not stated so? He said to him, if you state this to him you have to inform him that it is not so.

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

How many form a camp? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, one hundred. Gideon came with the hundred men who were with him to the border of the camp. Rebbi Abuna asked, if it had said, “the camp of a hundred men who were with him” it would be acceptable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ten: David’s servants came and spoke to Nabal, etc. What means and they rested? Rebbi Justus bar Shune said, they made a camp. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, ten: Until the camp was large like God’s camp. How many are “God’s camp”? Ten. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: 12’000 who are marching off as camp of Israel in a war of choice are permitted to rob moist wood but are forbidden to rob dry wood. Those who march out in a war of obligation are permitted to rob both dry and moist wood. Rebbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If they were made into bundles it is forbidden. So far if it was not close to a forest; even if it was close to a forest. So far if it was not close to a spring; even if it was close to a spring. If they brought it with them to a town, they already are freed from liability. What they took out with them from a town already is liable for demay. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Ḥizqiah said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi: Demay was put in order or not in order.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Shalom, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. They formulated the symphon according to Rebbi Meïr in Qiddušin. Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Since Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba wanted to be strict with themselves, this implies that practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: also for a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral, practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, the entire day they were arguing one with the other until my father’s brother came, decided between then, and instituted that practice follow Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah for a ship and Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba for a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral. What is the difference between a sheep corral and a ship? The colleagues say, for a ship because its walls are part of itself; Rebbi Zeˋira said, because one removes it from these four cubits and puts it into those four cubits. What difference results between them? If it was a covered walkway, according to the colleagues it is permitted, according to Rebbi Zeˋira it is forbidden. If the sea was calm, according to the colleagues it is forbidden, according to Rebbi Zeˋira it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the Mishnah says that the four cubits which they mentioned are not a domain.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If they were two, and some of the cubits of one,” etc. Even though Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos disagrees with the rabbis about the cubits he agrees with them here about the environs of towns.

There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent, in case it died he is not liable.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower. Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Mana, should they not insitute trumpet blowing? If you say so, it would turn out that [they would say, maybe] they blow for the daily sacrifice[, and they would be led astray]. He retorted, but did we not state: “Three to separate people from work, and three to separate between weekday and holiness”? He answered him, there every single Friday they are blowing, one will not err. But here it is once in a long time; if you say so, it would turn out that they would say, maybe they blow for the daily sacrifice, and they would be led astray.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, says, the Cohanim never refrained from burning meat which became impure by derivative impurity with meat which became impure by original impurity even though they added impurity to it.

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

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

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

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