bar

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated.“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. And for these, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated.“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. And for these, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes. If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden, but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes. If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden, but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes. If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden, but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling. It is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail, the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels. But here, for you, all you have use for.

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

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? There he says, one is prohibited from cunning but here he says, one is permitted to be cunning. Here it is because “not to be seen nor found”; there, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? There he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but here, he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, there it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but here liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, there it is to protect Jews’ money; here what do you have?

HALAKHAH: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One is permitted to feed it [to his dog]. Bar Qappara stated: There is no fissure on top which does not have several fissures below.

MISHNAH: If the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath one eliminates everything before the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, on their time. Rebbi Eleazar bar Sadoq says, heave before the Sabbath and profane on their time.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, if it is a sanctum should he burn it on the spot? Since even in Jerusalem one burns it before the Temple on altar wood. This one outside, how do you treat it? As having become impure outside or having become impure inside? Rebbi Yose said, since it is disqualified because of its place it becomes as if having become impure outside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is pure by the words of the Torah. You have decided that it be impure. It is not enough that you decided that it be impure, but you also want to make it as if having become impure outside? It [only] is like having become impure inside.

Some Tannaim state it switched. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa following our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, an indication is that of Berakhot: “What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Jehudah says to the size of an egg.” Less than that one does not importune him to return. What is the difference between one and the other? One can be declared insignificant, the other cannot be declared insignificant. So far sacrificial meat; leavened matter from where? Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from what we have stated, “similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem”, this implies that what is incident to one is incident to the other.

From where that the song is called atonement? Ḥinena the father of (Rav Yanta) [Bar Nata] in the name of Rebbi Banaia: and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song. From where that the song invalidates? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon βουλευτής, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song.

From where that the song is called atonement? Ḥinena the father of (Rav Yanta) [Bar Nata] in the name of Rebbi Banaia: and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song. From where that the song invalidates? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon βουλευτής, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only about a male horse because it kills [its owner] in war. Some say, because it runs after a female, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after a female, [this one] does not run after a female. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a large domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a small domestic animal.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only about a male horse because it kills [its owner] in war. Some say, because it runs after a female, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after a female, [this one] does not run after a female. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a large domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a small domestic animal.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Saul in the name of Rebbi: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached to the Tiberians following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, but some say Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman: A place where one is used to ignite is better than a place where one is used not to ignite. Rebbi Jeremiah said, you should know that this is so since on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both are saying, you should know that this is so since a man is modest and will not engage in sexual activity when a light is burning. Both he who said, one lights, as he who said, one does not light, because of leading into sin. He who said that one lights, because he will see and be ashamed. But he who said that one does not light, that he should not see and become desirous. It was stated: Even in (synagogues) [privies] and wash rooms. For that it is necessary: One ignites even in a place where one is not used to ignite.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Saul in the name of Rebbi: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached to the Tiberians following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, but some say Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman: A place where one is used to ignite is better than a place where one is used not to ignite. Rebbi Jeremiah said, you should know that this is so since on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both are saying, you should know that this is so since a man is modest and will not engage in sexual activity when a light is burning. Both he who said, one lights, as he who said, one does not light, because of leading into sin. He who said that one lights, because he will see and be ashamed. But he who said that one does not light, that he should not see and become desirous. It was stated: Even in (synagogues) [privies] and wash rooms. For that it is necessary: One ignites even in a place where one is not used to ignite.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Saul in the name of Rebbi: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached to the Tiberians following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, but some say Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman: A place where one is used to ignite is better than a place where one is used not to ignite. Rebbi Jeremiah said, you should know that this is so since on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both are saying, you should know that this is so since a man is modest and will not engage in sexual activity when a light is burning. Both he who said, one lights, as he who said, one does not light, because of leading into sin. He who said that one lights, because he will see and be ashamed. But he who said that one does not light, that he should not see and become desirous. It was stated: Even in (synagogues) [privies] and wash rooms. For that it is necessary: One ignites even in a place where one is not used to ignite.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Saul in the name of Rebbi: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached to the Tiberians following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, but some say Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman: A place where one is used to ignite is better than a place where one is used not to ignite. Rebbi Jeremiah said, you should know that this is so since on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both are saying, you should know that this is so since a man is modest and will not engage in sexual activity when a light is burning. Both he who said, one lights, as he who said, one does not light, because of leading into sin. He who said that one lights, because he will see and be ashamed. But he who said that one does not light, that he should not see and become desirous. It was stated: Even in (synagogues) [privies] and wash rooms. For that it is necessary: One ignites even in a place where one is not used to ignite.

On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Rav said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Eleazar said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, why did they say, one may soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Because of danger. Is there a difference between the danger on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath and a Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis objected, a Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath, the shew-breads are distributed in the evening.” There is a difference. Since this is a small matter, he might forget and eat. Rebbi Phineas objected:: A baraita of Rebbi Eleazar disagrees with him. The Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath is a day of rest; on a weekday it is a day of rest. If one is resting on a weekday, not so much more on a Sabbath? Is it not necessary that even things which you are permitted to do on a weekday you have to refrain from on a Sabbath? What would this be? This is soaking pickles and preserves. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. The matter is evident for anything which is served with cold food but for anything which is served with hot food while it is heated he can trim it. Rebbi Mana said, if you are saying so, also he will be embarrassed and will not trim; it will turn out that he will become endangered. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: May one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? He said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa asked Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa, may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? They said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi, may one say to the maker of fried food make me some fried food? He said to him, it is permitted. Make me baked goods? Permitted. Prepare me a wick? No. What is the difference between one and the other? This is food, the other is not food.

On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Rav said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Eleazar said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, why did they say, one may soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Because of danger. Is there a difference between the danger on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath and a Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis objected, a Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath, the shew-breads are distributed in the evening.” There is a difference. Since this is a small matter, he might forget and eat. Rebbi Phineas objected:: A baraita of Rebbi Eleazar disagrees with him. The Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath is a day of rest; on a weekday it is a day of rest. If one is resting on a weekday, not so much more on a Sabbath? Is it not necessary that even things which you are permitted to do on a weekday you have to refrain from on a Sabbath? What would this be? This is soaking pickles and preserves. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. The matter is evident for anything which is served with cold food but for anything which is served with hot food while it is heated he can trim it. Rebbi Mana said, if you are saying so, also he will be embarrassed and will not trim; it will turn out that he will become endangered. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: May one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? He said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa asked Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa, may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? They said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi, may one say to the maker of fried food make me some fried food? He said to him, it is permitted. Make me baked goods? Permitted. Prepare me a wick? No. What is the difference between one and the other? This is food, the other is not food.

On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Rav said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Eleazar said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, why did they say, one may soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Because of danger. Is there a difference between the danger on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath and a Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis objected, a Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath, the shew-breads are distributed in the evening.” There is a difference. Since this is a small matter, he might forget and eat. Rebbi Phineas objected:: A baraita of Rebbi Eleazar disagrees with him. The Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath is a day of rest; on a weekday it is a day of rest. If one is resting on a weekday, not so much more on a Sabbath? Is it not necessary that even things which you are permitted to do on a weekday you have to refrain from on a Sabbath? What would this be? This is soaking pickles and preserves. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. The matter is evident for anything which is served with cold food but for anything which is served with hot food while it is heated he can trim it. Rebbi Mana said, if you are saying so, also he will be embarrassed and will not trim; it will turn out that he will become endangered. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: May one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? He said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa asked Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa, may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? They said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi, may one say to the maker of fried food make me some fried food? He said to him, it is permitted. Make me baked goods? Permitted. Prepare me a wick? No. What is the difference between one and the other? This is food, the other is not food.

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

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

Rebbi Abba bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: If one leased his house to another and needs the money? He said to him, it is unthinkable that he should have to starve to death. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi [Il]la both say, μίστωσις like ὠνή is acquired by buying. It was stated: If one leased his house to another and went and dedicated it, [the renter] lives in it and pays the rent to the Sanctuary. When? If he did not pay the rent in advance, but if he paid the rent in advance he lives there for free. In the days of Rebbi Mana there was a company in Sepphoris, and their children were taken as pledges. When they were about to leave, Rebbi Mana published (so) [a proclamation] following Rebbi Immi. He said, not that I am of his opinion, but because of the Sepphoreans that they should not permanently lose their children.

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

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

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

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring.

If one broke a bird’s neck on leavening. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. This excludes the bird which is not slaughtered as sacrifice. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Him who said “liable” one understands as you are saying for freeing from liability. What is the reason of him who frees from liability? He said to him, one may infer punishment from punishment but one may not infer punishment from exemption.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa. Power was given to Moses’s voice and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of 40 days of travel. What did he say? From place X to place Y one group, from place Z to place U one group. You should not be astonished. If about dust, which does not usually move, it is said, it will bedust in the entire land of Egypt, voice which usually is moving, not so much more? Rebbi Levi said, just as power was given to Moses’s voice, so power was given to Pharao’s voice, [and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of forty days of travel.] What did he say? Get up, leave from the midst of my people. In the past you were servants of Pharao, from now on you are servants of the Eternal. At that moment, they were saying, Hallelujah, give praise, servants of the Eternal, but not servants of Pharao.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “nobody could sit in the Temple courtyard except kings of the Davidic dynasty”? And Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even the kings of the Davidic dynasty could not sit in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that he leaned on the wall as if sitting. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal, etc.? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated for prayer.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

as it was stated: “One who scratches, who drills, who chops anything is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one who scratches only if he scratches completely, one who drills only if he drills completely, one who chops only if he chopped completely, one who tans hides only if he tanned completely.” And Rebbi Jacob bar Ada said, this only follows Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon did not treat partial work as whole work, but the rabbis do treat partial work as whole work.

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

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

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

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it following him who said, from the doorstep of Jerusalem and outside. Would one object from outside Jerusalem to something inside Jerusalem?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The festival offering of the Fourteenth could come from tithe. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This means that it is voluntary. If you would say that it is obligatory, can anything which is obligatory come from tithe?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The festival offering of the Fourteenth could come from tithe. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This means that it is voluntary. If you would say that it is obligatory, can anything which is obligatory come from tithe?

It was stated: The festival offering which comes with the Pesaḥ is eaten first so that the Pesaḥ be eaten when one is satiated. Why should the Pesaḥ not be eaten so one be satiated? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Dosay: Lest one come to break a bone.

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody became disinterested in his Pesaḥ, its body is brought as well-being offering. Rebbi Jonah said, qualified well-being offering. Rebbi Yose said, disqualified well-being offering. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the only Pesaḥ which itself is brought as well-being offering is what was lost and found after the owner had fulfilled his obligation. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Samuel said, in any case where they said that a purification sacrifice is allowed to die, a Pesaḥ will be brought as well-being sacrifice. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and disqualified. They explain it, not liable and qualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody became disinterested in his Pesaḥ, its body is brought as well-being offering. Rebbi Jonah said, qualified well-being offering. Rebbi Yose said, disqualified well-being offering. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the only Pesaḥ which itself is brought as well-being offering is what was lost and found after the owner had fulfilled his obligation. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Samuel said, in any case where they said that a purification sacrifice is allowed to die, a Pesaḥ will be brought as well-being sacrifice. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and disqualified. They explain it, not liable and qualified.

HALAKHAH: “How does one roast the Pesaḥ” etc. Why of pomegranates? Rebbi Ḥiyyas bar Abba said, all wood oozes fluid, but of pomegranates does not ooze fluid. Where do we hold? If fresh, even pomegranate {[wood} oozes. If dry, all other wood does not ooze. But it is so: All other wood if it is dry outside still is moist inside. Pomegranate {wood} if dry outside is dry inside.

“A fire burn, I could think if it stays moist, the verse says, if the burn was healed. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar; until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.” And here he says so? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted, the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable. But here what do you have?

“If it touched the pottery of the tannur,” it is a disability of its body and it has to be burned immediately. “If of its fluid fell on clay,” it is a disability on the instrument and needs [losing its] shape. “If of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place.” Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: that is, if it is hot. But if it is cool, it is forbidden. Rebbi Eleazar, the Torah did not say, it should not cook others, but it should not be cooked because of others.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: Or on a far trip for you. What is in the open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]: If a person dies suddenly on him. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: To publicize him, to make it known that he spoiled it. If he said, I am going to burn it before the citadel on my own wood, one does not listen to him; it is not necessary to note that if he says, I will burn it on my roof on my own wood that one does not listen to him.

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.

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: A bone with no meat on it, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is forbidden to break it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break it. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow in a marrow-bone. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and profit from the bone? They wanted to say that one may not strip off from the disqualified. Rebbi Eleazar said, and even if you say that one may strip, he explains it following Rebbi Jacob, since Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: why did they say, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Because he who burns causes breaking. Samuel said, one may subscribe to the brain in the head but one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. One may subscribe to the brain in the head because one can take it out through the ear. But one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone since one could only extricate it by breaking. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone, but if he subscribed, he subscribed. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Because of the loss of sancta. In Samuel’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Samuel thinks like Rebbi Jacob, as Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure.

May one start fire on a pyre of leavened matter? For him who infers from leftovers it is prohibited; for him who does not infer from leftovers it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, they came to it following the argument of Rebbi Ismael. (etc.) [Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night.]

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Issy, one switches and one follows as it was stated. The one who switches does not have these problems.And how much does he have to break? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: until the hand be grated. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Abba both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, until the hand be grated; but the other said, even a finger nail. He who said the hand, so much more the finger nail. He who said the finger nail, but not the hand.Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, one never is liable unless one break a bone on which there is meat in the size of an olive, at one place of meat. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked, then he never should be liable unless he take a stone and smash it into little pieces. A bone, to make him liable for each single bone. This is, with one warning. But with two warnings, then he will be twice liable even for a single bone which he broke repeatedly. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break a bone without meat. He said this only that he cannot be whipped, but as a prohibition, it is prohibited.

The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Issy, one switches and one follows as it was stated. The one who switches does not have these problems.And how much does he have to break? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: until the hand be grated. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Abba both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, until the hand be grated; but the other said, even a finger nail. He who said the hand, so much more the finger nail. He who said the finger nail, but not the hand.Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, one never is liable unless one break a bone on which there is meat in the size of an olive, at one place of meat. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked, then he never should be liable unless he take a stone and smash it into little pieces. A bone, to make him liable for each single bone. This is, with one warning. But with two warnings, then he will be twice liable even for a single bone which he broke repeatedly. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break a bone without meat. He said this only that he cannot be whipped, but as a prohibition, it is prohibited.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad majus. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which left what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? If you are saying that piggul and leftovers do not disqualify heave, about that which left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by [touching] itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives) he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there, this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: Then one who removes should not be liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : One who removes is not liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but it was stated there, an individual who removed the volume of an olive from a group is liable but he did not disqualify himself as a member of the group. This implies, even if he did not eat. If you would say, he ate, why did he not disqualify himself as a member of the group? Rebbi Yose said, when he removed it he disqualified it. Even if he ate, he ate something disqualified. Where was this said? There is breaking after breaking but not removing after removing. Either this means that when he removes it, he disqualifies it, or it means that he is not liable up to the moment when he eats.

An individual can move his part in the entire room, but a group cannot move their part in the entire room. But did we not state “two groups”? He only said two; therefore not one. But did we not state, “the samovar in the middle”? The place of the waiter proves where his group is. But did we not state, “the newly-wed may turn aside her face and eat”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because of shyness

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

“A slave of two owners may not eat from either of them.” Rebbi Yose said, his master has no right to say, it is impossible that you should be counted for a Pesaḥ, but he may say to him, you may not be counted for this one, only for that one. Sometimes he is counted for three Pesaḥim simultaneously. How is this? A slave of two owners must subscribe to a Pesaḥ. If one of them freed his part, he has to subscribe to another Pesaḥ. If both of them freed, he has to subscribe to yet another Pesaḥ. Samuel bar Abba asked, may the slave eat from all three of them? If you are saying that the slave may not eat from all three of them, then he should not be able to subscribe to a Pesaḥ, since perhaps his master might want to free him and it turns out that an invalid dedication is mixed up in the offering. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked, may the owner fulfill his obligation by the slave’s dedication? Is that not a Mishnah: “One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me.” The Mishnah on the instruction of his master, what is problematic for him not on the instruction of his master.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb”?

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there, “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his hands.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there, “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his hands.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Abba bar bar Hana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : The Mishnah if he was jailed by Jews. But if he was jailed by gentiles, whose mouth speaks vanity and whose oath is false oath. If he was held outside of Jerusalem, but if he was held in Jerusalem even if they did not promise it is as if they had promised.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Abba bar bar Hana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : The Mishnah if he was jailed by Jews. But if he was jailed by gentiles, whose mouth speaks vanity and whose oath is false oath. If he was held outside of Jerusalem, but if he was held in Jerusalem even if they did not promise it is as if they had promised.

Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both are saying, in the beginning we used to say that one may sprinkle on an uncircumcised Jew; but we were saying nothing. Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi stated before Rebbi Hila: It is said here then he shall come near to make it, and it is said there, then he may eat of it. Since then mentioned there presumes that he is qualified at the time of eating, so also there mentioned here presumes that he is qualified at the time of (eating) [slaughter].

It was stated: one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors, since they increase lewd behavior. Bar Qappara stated, because they bring sancta to disqualification. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Issy: One does not form a group from proselytes. Since they are [faulty they are not] diligent about it and bring it to disqualification.

It was stated: one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors, since they increase lewd behavior. Bar Qappara stated, because they bring sancta to disqualification. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Issy: One does not form a group from proselytes. Since they are [faulty they are not] diligent about it and bring it to disqualification.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning.Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow, and mourning all who throw a fishing hook into the Nile? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? You and your captives. Since you could not be impure before you entered the covenant, also your captives cannot be impure before they enter the covenant. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? You and your captives. Since you need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}, so your captives need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}. But it is not logically consistent, since Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph, Giddul bar Benjamin said in the name of Rav: The House of Hillel agree that if he transgressed and poured the blood, that it is accepted.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? You and your captives. Since you could not be impure before you entered the covenant, also your captives cannot be impure before they enter the covenant. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? You and your captives. Since you need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}, so your captives need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}. But it is not logically consistent, since Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph, Giddul bar Benjamin said in the name of Rav: The House of Hillel agree that if he transgressed and poured the blood, that it is accepted.

Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates the year because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate the year because of impurity. He who says, one does not intercalate, how does he uphold: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written? They intercalated in Nisan but only Adar can be intercalated. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Yebusite under the altar.