aqiba

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If five courtyards were open to one another,” etc. “But forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses”. But if they were open to one another but not open to the alley they would be forbidden even if they made an eruv. Rebbi Yasa said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s, since Rebbi Aqiba said, a right of access prohibits.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If five courtyards were open to one another,” etc. “But forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses”. But if they were open to one another but not open to the alley they would be forbidden even if they made an eruv. Rebbi Yasa said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s, since Rebbi Aqiba said, a right of access prohibits.

MISHNAH: Two courtyards, one inside the other. If for the inner one they made an eruv but not the outer one, the inner one is permitted and the outer one forbidden. If the outer one but not the inner one, both are forbidden. If both made separate eruvin, both are permitted separately; Rebbi Aqiba forbids the outer one since the right of access makes it forbidden but the Sages say the right of access does not make it forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Two courtyards, one inside the other,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s since Rebbi Aqiba said, the right of access makes it forbidden . Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, forbidden right of access makes it forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Two courtyards, one inside the other,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s since Rebbi Aqiba said, the right of access makes it forbidden . Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, forbidden right of access makes it forbidden.

Costos as we have stated, “costos, and cardamon, and important spices may be bought with tithe money but do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, if they may be bought with tithe money they become impure by impurity of foodstuff, and if they do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff they may not be bought with tithe money.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive: they become impure by impurity of foodstuff and may not be bought with tithe money.

Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others. Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.

Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others. Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.

MISHNAH: If a crawling animal was found in the Temple, a Cohen carries it outside in his belt in order not to continue the impurity, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Jehudah says, with wooden tongs in order not to increase impurity. From where does one remove it? From the Temple Hall, and the vestibule, and from between the vestibule and the altar, the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Nannas. Rebbi Aqiba says, from a place where one is liable for extirpation in case of criminal intent and a purification offering if in error one removes it; at all other places one places a wine cooler over it. Rebbi Simeon said, at a place where the Sages permitted it to you they gave it from your own since they only permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restrictions.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba added and said, the Cohanim never refrained from burning oil which became disqualified by a ṭevul-yom in a lamp impure by the impurity of the dead even though they added impurity to it.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aqiba follows his opinion, since Rebbi Aqiba said, shall be impure, shall make impure by word of the Torah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even though Rebbi Ismael does not accept shall be impure, shall make impure, for foodstuffs, he accepts shall be impure, shall make impure, for implements.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aqiba follows his opinion, since Rebbi Aqiba said, shall be impure, shall make impure by word of the Torah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even though Rebbi Ismael does not accept shall be impure, shall make impure, for foodstuffs, he accepts shall be impure, shall make impure, for implements.

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

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

And you are saying, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Meïr 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 Meïr, whether it is a vat which contains enough to lift it or a vat which 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,” nobody says “this is not” unless he agrees with the premise. How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in order to care for the property of Jews; here what do you have? Does the Jew not lose money even here? For he needs to burn wood separately and this separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥanina the executive officer of the Cohanim; and one cannot infer anything.

It is written: or cooking cooked in water. I not only have water, from where other fluids? The verse says, cooking cooked, in any way. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? An argument de minore ad majus. Since for water which does not mask its taste you are saying it is forbidden, other fluids which mask its taste not so much more?

“One does not knead mazzah with fluids but one may rub it with them. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua on a ship and kneaded their mazzah with fluids. One may not knead mazzah with boiling water since it parboils, nor with lukewarm water because this makes leavened, but one kneads with cold water.” But did we not state: “All flour offerings are kneaded with lukewarm water and one guards them lest they become leavened”? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There the matter is in the hands of the Cohanim and Cohanim are quick; here it is in the hands of women and women are slow. Then it is a problem about Cohanim themselves, may they knead their mazzah with lukewarm water? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and combs. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between mazzah and mazzah.

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking. Rebbi Aqiba says, neither all women nor all wood nor all ovens are equal. This is the principle, she shall beat it and wet it with cold water.

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

“They gave peah from vegetables.” “They only gave for beets and leeks since these are harvested once. Rebbi Yose said, also cabbage.” It happened that the son of Ben Meviyayin gave peah of vegetables to the poor. His father came and found them standing at the door of the garden plot. He told them, put down what is in your hands, they put down what was in their hands. He gave them double from what had been tithed. Not that he was a miser, but he was concerned about the words of the Sages. Once the rabbis needed contributions; they sent to him Rebbi Aqiba and another rabbi with him. When they came to enter at his place they heard the voice of a lad saying to him, what shall we buy for you today? He said, endives, not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. They left him and went away. After all people had (acquired merit) [contributed], they came to him. He said to them, why did you not come to me first, as you were used to? They told him, we already came but heard the voice of a lad saying to you, what shall we buy for you today? You said, endives, not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. He said, you know what was between me and the lad; do you know what is between me and my Creator? Nevertheless, go and tell her to give you a modius of denars. They went and told her. She said to them, what did he say to you, heaped or flat? They answered her, he said it vaguely. She told them, I am giving you heaped. If he said so, I filled it. If not, I shall account for the excess from my dowry. When her husband heard this, he doubled her ketubaḥ.

Who is the Tanna of “whether it be weekday or Sabbath”? Rebbi Ismael, as it was stated: “As its order is on a weekday so its order is on a Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, as its order is on a Friday so is its order on a Sabbath.” This means that Rebbi Ismael makes it an hour later for its arguments, and Rebbi Aqiba makes it an hour earlier to occupy oneself with it, so they would not fulfill the commandment while inebriated. Could not the Pesaḥ be brought first and the daily sacrifice afterwards? If you are saying so, you are eliminating between the evenings of the Pesaḥ. If you are keeping between the evenings of the Pesaḥ, are you not eliminating between the evenings of the daily sacrifice? If you are neglecting between the evenings of the daily sacrifice now, you can observe it at other times. If you are neglecting it now for the Pesaḥ, when can you ever observe it? Could not Pesaḥ be brought first, followed by the daily sacrifice? The one about which is written in the evening and between the evenings shall be delayed more than one about which is written [only] between the evenings.

Who is the Tanna of “whether it be weekday or Sabbath”? Rebbi Ismael, as it was stated: “As its order is on a weekday so its order is on a Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, as its order is on a Friday so is its order on a Sabbath.” This means that Rebbi Ismael makes it an hour later for its arguments, and Rebbi Aqiba makes it an hour earlier to occupy oneself with it, so they would not fulfill the commandment while inebriated. Could not the Pesaḥ be brought first and the daily sacrifice afterwards? If you are saying so, you are eliminating between the evenings of the Pesaḥ. If you are keeping between the evenings of the Pesaḥ, are you not eliminating between the evenings of the daily sacrifice? If you are neglecting between the evenings of the daily sacrifice now, you can observe it at other times. If you are neglecting it now for the Pesaḥ, when can you ever observe it? Could not Pesaḥ be brought first, followed by the daily sacrifice? The one about which is written in the evening and between the evenings shall be delayed more than one about which is written [only] between the evenings.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

HALAKHAH: Thirteen years did Rebbi Aqiba enter at Rebbi Eliezer’s and he did not take notice of him. This is his first retort before Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is this not the people which you despised; go now and fight against it.

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

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

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday and pushes the Sabbath aside, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday, should they push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could do after the Sabbath and which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter which push aside the Sabbath when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday and pushes the Sabbath aside, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday, should they push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could do after the Sabbath and which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter which push aside the Sabbath when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

MISHNAH: How does one roast the Pesaḥ? A spit of pomegranate wood he sticks from its mouth to its buttocks and puts the hooves and its innards into it, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, this is a kind of cooking; but one hangs them outside.

Everybody agrees that “on it” means “in contact”. Where do they disagree? About “on”. Abba Shaul says, on the array, near the array. But the rabbis say, on the array, on top of the array. It turns out that Abba Shaul parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and the rabbis Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi says, even if he made them two arrangements of fourteen, one considers the upper one as nonexistent and the lower ones are qualified. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Abba Shaul use in the method of Rebbi Meïr for the table.

Inside-out, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Ismael says, helmeted. It turns out that Rebbi Tarphon parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Ismael Rebbi Yose the Galilean; as we have stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, “what is a helmeted kid-goat? Entirely roasted, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. If he parboiled part of it, or cooked part of it, this is not a helmeted kid-goat. One serves helmeted kid-goat in the evening of the first day of Tabernacles, and on the last day of Passover. One serves helmeted calf on the first night of Passover but not helmeted kid-goat.”

Rebbi Immi asked, if one cleaned out the tannur and roasted it in it? Rebbi Jeremiah said, his problem is following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, but it is obvious for him following Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yose said, even following Rebbi Aqiba it is problematic for him. From the coals into the air of the tannur it is roasted in half an hour. From the coals into free air it is roasted in one hour. What is the difference between being roasted half because of the tannur or being roasted entirely because of the tannur? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tannur does nothing for the coals, it only keeps the heat together. If the coals are inside the tannur it is roasted in half an hour; if the coals are in free air it is roasted in one hour.

Rebbi Immi asked, if one cleaned out the tannur and roasted it in it? Rebbi Jeremiah said, his problem is following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, but it is obvious for him following Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yose said, even following Rebbi Aqiba it is problematic for him. From the coals into the air of the tannur it is roasted in half an hour. From the coals into free air it is roasted in one hour. What is the difference between being roasted half because of the tannur or being roasted entirely because of the tannur? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tannur does nothing for the coals, it only keeps the heat together. If the coals are inside the tannur it is roasted in half an hour; if the coals are in free air it is roasted in one hour.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same, as it was stated: “it was burned because of deep mourning? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them. And we have stated there: “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior, Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned, to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood.

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse, I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

MISHNAH: What is a far-away trip? From Modiˋin and farther away, and the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, outside the doorstep of the Temple Courtyard. Rebbi Yose said, therefore there is a dot on the ה to indicate not that it be really far but outside the doorstep of the Temple Courtyard.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I have heard that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is sacrificed and that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain it. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. The Pesaḥ which is found before the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and for the money one shall bring well-being offerings; the same holds for its substitute. After the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering; the same holds for its substitute.

MISHNAH: How far does he say? The House of Shammai say, up to a happy mother of children. But the House of Hillel are saying, up to the pebble into a source of water, and he finishes with “redemption.” Rebbi Tarphon says, “Who freed us and freed our forefathers from Egypt and let us reach this night”, and does not seal. Rebbi Aqiba says, “so Eternal, our God, let us reach other festivals coming towards us in peace, happy in the rebuilding of Your city, enjoying Your service, and the renewal of Your Temple. There may we eat from the Pesaḥ and well-being offerings whose blood will reach to the wall of Your altar for pleasure and we shall thank You for our redemption. Praise to You, Eternal, Who redeems Israel.”

(where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. If he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? There is a difference since it is written, family and family, country and country, and town and town.)

MISHNAH: If part of them slept, they may eat; if all of them, they may not eat Rebbi Yose says, if they were sleepy, they may eat, if they slept they may not eat. The Pesaḥ after midnight makes hands impure. Piggul and leftover make the hands impure. If he recited the benediction for the Pesaḥ it exempted that of the family sacrifice; the one for the family sacrifice does not exempt the one for the Pesaḥ, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba said, neither one exempts the other.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

MISHNAH: The second lottery: Who slaughters, who pours, who removes the ashes from the interior altar, who cleans the candelabrum, and who brings the parts to the ramp: head and leg, the two front legs, spine and leg, breast and fat, two side pieces, and the intestines, and the fine flour, and the pan-baked breads, and the wine. Thirteen Cohanim won here. Ben Azzai said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Joshua, it was brought in the way of its walking.

HALAKHAH: They shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; I could think, two hundred. Rebbi Aqiba said, anywhere you could understand many or you could understand few, if you took the many you took nothing, if you took few you took. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, two measures; one finite, the other infinite. Everybody measures with the finite measure, but nobody measures with the infinite measure. Rebbi Nehemiah said, does the verse come to open or to lock in? It does not come to lock in but to open. If you are saying days are ten, they could be 100 or 200 or 1’000 or 10’000. But if you say days are two, you did unlock. Rebbi Muna said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah. Days are two. I could think that days are many. If they are many, why is it said, many? Therefore the verse only spoke of few days. How much are they? It means two; many are three. I could think that many (days) means ten. It says days and it says many. Since the minimum of days are two, so for many, the minimum of many are three. I could think that two and three make five. But is it said, days [and many]? It only is said, many days. How is this? These many should be more than two. How many are they? It implies three.

The sons of Aaron shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange. [If the Cohen shall arrange,] I could think that a single Cohen should arrange all the limbs; the verse says, they shall arrange. How is this? One Cohen arranges two limbs. How many limbs are there? Ten, and one for the intestines. It turns out that the lamb comes up by six (priests}, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]

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

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

It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael said, if the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone is given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning it is only logical that it be given on the base. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, No. If you said that the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone and is not able to atone are given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning and is able to atone is only logical that it be given on the base.” He who said “does not atone”, they do not atone during all other days of the year; therefore on the Day of Atonement they atone. He who says “does not atone and is not able to atone”, they do not atone either on New Year’s Day and not on the Day of Atonement. Where do we hold? If for a commandment, it is a commandment to give on the base. But if it cannot refer to the commandment, let it refer to obstruction.

MISHNAH: If he read in his byssus garments, he sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up, and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He went out and sacrificed his ram, and the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba says, they had been brought with the daily morning offering; the bull of elevation offering and the he-goat offered outside were brought with the daily afternoon sacrifice. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered to remove the cup and the pan. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. He entered, burned the incense, and prepared the lights. He sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him his own garments in which he dressed. One accompanies him to his house. He made a festivity for his friends when he exited in peace.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages, all of them were brought with the daily morning offering. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Joseph: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say, frequent and holy, holy has precedence, so Rebbi Eliezer says, frequent and holy, holy has precedence. How is this? The service of the Day is holier and the day’s musaf sacrifices are more frequent; the service of the Day has precedence over the day’s musaf sacrifices.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is said on this very day about work and it is said on this very day about deprivation. Since in regard of on this very day said about work you did not differentiate between day and night, between punishment and warning, so in regard of on this very day said about deprivation we shall not differentiate between day and night, between punishment and warning. So far following Rebbi Aqiba.

MISHNAH: If somebody say, “I shall sin and repent, I shall sin and repent,” one does not let him achieve to repent. “I shall sin and the day of Atonement will atone,” the Day of Atonement does not atone. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor. The following did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain: Of all your unintentional sins before the Eternal you shall be cleansed. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor. Rebbi Aqiba said, blessed are you, Israel. Before whom do you cleanse yourselves, and who cleanses you? Your Father Who is in Heaven, as it is said, I shall sprinkle on you pure water, so you shall be pure. And it is said Israel’s hope is the Eternal, since a miqweh purifies the impure people, so the Holy One, praise to Him, cleanses Israel.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat atones. How does it atone? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in small pieces. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: “There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram: The Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone without the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram since the ram atones immediately but the Day of Atonement only atones at nightfall.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately

It was stated: It is necessary to detail one’s actions, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not have to detail his actions. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Please, this people committed a grave sin, they made themselves golden idols. How does Rebbi Aqiba treat this? Who caused it to them? I, for I gave them much silver and gold. Why? For a donkey is not braying out of a basket of carob fruit.

It was stated: It is necessary to detail one’s actions, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not have to detail his actions. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Please, this people committed a grave sin, they made themselves golden idols. How does Rebbi Aqiba treat this? Who caused it to them? I, for I gave them much silver and gold. Why? For a donkey is not braying out of a basket of carob fruit.

MISHNAH: Three times a year one disburses from the lodge; half a month before Passover, half a month before Pentecost, and half a month before Tabernacles, and these are threshing floors for animal tithe, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai says, on the 29 of Adar, the first of Sivan, and the 29 of Av. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simon say, on the first of Nisan, the first of Sivan, and the 29 of Elul. Why did they say on the 29th of Elul and did not say on the first of Tishre? Because that is a holiday and it is impossible to tithe on a holiday; therefore they advanced it to the 29th of Elul.

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

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

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

MISHNAH: The Cow, the he-goat which is sent away, and the shiny strip come from the money disbursed from the lodge. The ramp for the Cow, the ramp for the he-goat which is sent away, the strip bound on its horns, the water canal, the city wall and its towers, and all needs of the city, come from the leftovers in the lodge. Abba Shaul says, the High Priests build the ramp for the Cow at their own expense. What did one do with the leftover in the lodge? One buys with it wine, oil, and fine flour, and the gain is the Temple’s, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, one gains neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor. What did they use the leftover of the disbursement for? Gold sheets coating for the Holiest of Holies. Rebbi Ismael said, the leftover of produce is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Rebbi Aqiba says, the leftover of the disbursement is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the libations is for Service vessels. Rebbi Ḥanania the executive officer of the Cohanim says, the leftover of the libations is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Neither of them did agree about produce.

MISHNAH: The Cow, the he-goat which is sent away, and the shiny strip come from the money disbursed from the lodge. The ramp for the Cow, the ramp for the he-goat which is sent away, the strip bound on its horns, the water canal, the city wall and its towers, and all needs of the city, come from the leftovers in the lodge. Abba Shaul says, the High Priests build the ramp for the Cow at their own expense. What did one do with the leftover in the lodge? One buys with it wine, oil, and fine flour, and the gain is the Temple’s, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, one gains neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor. What did they use the leftover of the disbursement for? Gold sheets coating for the Holiest of Holies. Rebbi Ismael said, the leftover of produce is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Rebbi Aqiba says, the leftover of the disbursement is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the libations is for Service vessels. Rebbi Ḥanania the executive officer of the Cohanim says, the leftover of the libations is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Neither of them did agree about produce.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices, they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way, but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly, following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified, following the words of Rebbi Joshua. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices, they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way, but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly, following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified, following the words of Rebbi Joshua. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

Rebbi Jonah said, it is written: Therefore, I shall distribute to him in public, and with the powerful he shall have part in booty, that is Rebbi Aqiba who organized interpretation of Scripture, practice, and homiletics. But some say, this refers to the men of the Great Assembly, who organized principles and details.

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

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

Naḥum from Gimzo was carrying a gift to the house of his father-in-law when he met a person afflicted with boils who asked him, acquire merit from what you have on you. He said to him, when I shall return. He returned and found him dead. He said before him, his eyes which saw you and did not give to you shall go blind, his hands which did not stretch out to give to you shall be cut off, his feet which did not run to give to you shall be broken. This happened to him. Rebbi Aqiba came to visit him and said, woe to me that I see you in this state. He answered, woe to me that I do not see you in this state. He asked, why do you curse me? He answered, why are you contemptuous of suffering?

MISHNAH: Flesh of most holy sacrifices which became impure either by original impurity or by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, the House of Shammai are saying that everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity. The House of Hillel are saying that everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity. Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside. Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning.

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

HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If put on the ground, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If it sails, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba. But we must hold when it is in port.

Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rebbi Meïr of the laths, [as we have stated:] “it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rebbi Meïr declares it pure.” Rebbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rebbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba came in a ship, and Rebbi Aqiba made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. There came a wind which blew it away. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Aqiba, where is your sukkah?

Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rebbi Meïr of the laths, [as we have stated:] “it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rebbi Meïr declares it pure.” Rebbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rebbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba came in a ship, and Rebbi Aqiba made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. There came a wind which blew it away. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Aqiba, where is your sukkah?

Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rebbi Meïr of the laths, [as we have stated:] “it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rebbi Meïr declares it pure.” Rebbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rebbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba came in a ship, and Rebbi Aqiba made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. There came a wind which blew it away. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Aqiba, where is your sukkah?

Rebbi Maluk in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If the spine is split it is as if the leaves were spread out. Date-palm palms. Rebbi Tarphon says, tied date-palms. Rebbi Aqiba says, palms of date palms as they are called. Rebbi Jehudah says, if they are spread out he shall tie them together.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael says, three myrtle branches and two willow twigs, one lulav and one etrog; even two truncated and one not chopped off. Rebbi Tarphon says, even all three truncated. Rebbi Aqiba says, just as there is one lulav and one etrog so there is one myrtle branch and one willow twig.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

Rebbi Yose said, if there were written and date-palm palms, it would be correct. Only date-palm palms is written, even one in one hand and the other in the other hand. They said about Rebbi Aqiba that he entered the synagogue with an etrog on his shoulders.

MISHNAH: One ties the lulav only with its own kind, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, even with a string. Rebbi Meïr said, it happened that the people of Jerusalem did tie their lulavim with golden jewels. They told him, under these they tied it with its own kind. Where did they move? At thank the Eternal beginning and end, and also at please, Eternal, please save, following the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, also at please, Eternal, please give success. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was watching Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua, when all the people were shaking their lulavim but they moved them only at please, Eternal, please save. If somebody returns from a trip where he had no lulav, when he enters his house he can take it at his table. If he did not take it in the morning he may take it in the afternoon since the entire day is qualified for the lulav.

HALAKHAH: “Lulav and willow six and seven,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said, the willow is a word of the Torah: and brook willows, two. One willow for the lulav, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: willow and pouring water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institution of the prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai, as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty word, if it is empty it is from you. Why? Because you do not exert yourselves. Because it is your life; when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourselves. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on the fast day, and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also the moving.

HALAKHAH: “Lulav and willow six and seven,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said, the willow is a word of the Torah: and brook willows, two. One willow for the lulav, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: willow and pouring water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institution of the prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai, as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty word, if it is empty it is from you. Why? Because you do not exert yourselves. Because it is your life; when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourselves. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on the fast day, and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also the moving.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, an idol crossed with Israel through the Sea. What is the reason? Before Your people which You redeemed for Yourself, peoples and his god. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Heaven beware! If you are saying so it turns out that you profane the holy. Why does the verse say, which You redeemed for Yourself? If it were possible to say, as if You redeemed Yourself.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated, to make a procession on the occasion. Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Menaḥem from Yodfat: It is Rebbi Aqiba’s Yose ben Ḥanina, since Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated, to make a procession on the occasion. Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Menaḥem from Yodfat: It is Rebbi Aqiba’s Yose ben Ḥanina, since Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar says, also one who pours a libation of water on Tabernacles outside of the Temple is liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. There are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday; there are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday. He who said, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following Rebbi Aqiba; he who said, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following the rabbis. This you cannot say since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Ze`ira said, only if he poured three log inside and three log outside. There are Tannaim who state, there is prescribed measure; there are Tannaim who state, there is no prescribed measure. He who said that there is prescribed measure, not liable; he who said there is no prescribed measure, liable.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar says, also one who pours a libation of water on Tabernacles outside of the Temple is liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. There are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday; there are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday. He who said, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following Rebbi Aqiba; he who said, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following the rabbis. This you cannot say since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Ze`ira said, only if he poured three log inside and three log outside. There are Tannaim who state, there is prescribed measure; there are Tannaim who state, there is no prescribed measure. He who said that there is prescribed measure, not liable; he who said there is no prescribed measure, liable.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar says, also one who pours a libation of water on Tabernacles outside of the Temple is liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. There are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday; there are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday. He who said, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following Rebbi Aqiba; he who said, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following the rabbis. This you cannot say since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Ze`ira said, only if he poured three log inside and three log outside. There are Tannaim who state, there is prescribed measure; there are Tannaim who state, there is no prescribed measure. He who said that there is prescribed measure, not liable; he who said there is no prescribed measure, liable.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar says, also one who pours a libation of water on Tabernacles outside of the Temple is liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. There are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday; there are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday. He who said, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following Rebbi Aqiba; he who said, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following the rabbis. This you cannot say since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Ze`ira said, only if he poured three log inside and three log outside. There are Tannaim who state, there is prescribed measure; there are Tannaim who state, there is no prescribed measure. He who said that there is prescribed measure, not liable; he who said there is no prescribed measure, liable.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar says, also one who pours a libation of water on Tabernacles outside of the Temple is liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. There are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday; there are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday. He who said, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following Rebbi Aqiba; he who said, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following the rabbis. This you cannot say since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Ze`ira said, only if he poured three log inside and three log outside. There are Tannaim who state, there is prescribed measure; there are Tannaim who state, there is no prescribed measure. He who said that there is prescribed measure, not liable; he who said there is no prescribed measure, liable.

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