baraita

There they say one should not start wayyomer but if one did start he has to finish. The rabbis here say one starts but does not finish. The Mishnah disagrees with the rabbis here: “One must mention the Exodus in the night.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav: We thank You that You took us out of Egypt and redeemed us from the house of slavery to give thanks to Your Name. A baraita disagrees with the rabbis there: Wayyomer is used only during daytime. The entire section of wayyomer is used only during daytime.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Why did they say, a man puts on tefillin, recites the Shema‘ and prays? So that he first should accept upon himself the Kingdom of Heaven completely. Rav said, one reads the Shema‘, puts on tefillin, and prays. A baraita of Rav himself disagrees with him: “If somebody was occupied with a dead person in his grave and the time for the recital of Shema‘ arrived, he should move to a pure place, put on tefillin, recite the Shema‘, and pray”. Does not the Mishnah support Rav: “In order that one should accept the Kingdom of Heaven before he accepts the yoke of the commandments”?

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of (Rebbi) Abba [bar Jeremiah]: A person should not enter a urinal with his books or tefillin in his hands. Rebbi Yoḥanan, when he had a book in his hand he gave it to somebody else. When his tefillin were on him, he stood in them. A baraita disagrees with Abba bar Jeremiah: A man may enter a urinal with his books or tefillin in his hand. Rebbi Zeïra said: Abba bar Jeremiah refers to one case where he can wear them, and to another case where he cannot wear them. For if he cannot perform a mitzwah with them, why should he degrade them?

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Where does he say it? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day. Rebbi Mani said: I, who did not check whether one follows Rav Jeremiah or Rebbi Yannai the son of Rebbi Ismael, went to the study hall and I heard: “Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Rebbi Yose objected that a baraitha disagrees: Every day one prays eighteen benedictions, including the night after Sabbath and the nights after Yom Kippur and after Public Fasts.” Since Rebbi Yose said, this baraita disagrees, it contradicts the statement: between “Redeemer of Israel” and “Healer of the sick.”

Young palm shoots. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: He recites on it “Creator of the fruit of the tree.” Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Saul stated, “By Whose word everything was created.” Rebbi Joshua stated: “Creator of kinds of grasses.” The baraita of Rebbi Oshaiah disagrees: “The following are the kinds of grasses: artichoke, ḥalimah, demua, and lycium.

From the Patriarch they sent Nicolaus dates to Rebbi Ḥanina bar Sisai. He left them for dessert after his meal and recited a benediction over them before and after. Rav Ḥuna ate dates with his bread. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, are you disagreeing with your teacher? Leave them for dessert after your meal and you may recite a benediction over them before and after. He said to him, they are the main thing my teeth get to bite. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose went to the marriage feast of Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya. They brought before them kisnīn bread after the meal. They said, let us leave our learning and let us bring a baraita: Rebbi Mana stated in the name of Rebbi Yehudah, who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean: Bread that comes kisnīn after the meal needs a benediction before and after. They said, since they are the minority and the rabbis disagree with them, let us act following the rabbis.

Three who ate together and one wants to leave, Rav said he should recite the first benediction, then he may leave. What is the first benediction? In the Yeshivah of Rav they said, the benediction of invitation. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Jeremiah: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥanan in the name of Rav: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rav Sheshet objected, but a baraita disagrees: “Two, three are obliged to recite Grace.” If you want to say the benediction of invitation is the first one, one should state “four.” They found stated “four.” If you want to say this is “He Who feeds all”, it is difficult. If you want to say that it is “He Who is good and does good”, you cannot do that, there is a difference because Rav Huna said that “He Who is good and does good” was fixed after permission was received to bury the slain of Betar, “He Who is good” because the dead did not decompose and “He Who does good” that they could be buried. Rav Huna said, you may explain it following Rebbi Ismael since Rebbi Ismael said, “He Who is good and does good” is an obligation from the Torah as it is written (Deut.8:10): You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise, that is the benediction of invitation; the Eternal, your God, that is “He Who feeds all”; for the Land, that is the benediction over the Land; the good one, that is the benediction “builder of Jerusalem” [and so it says (Deut. 3:25) “this good mountain and the Lebanon”]; that He gave you, that is “He Who is good and does good”.

It has been stated: One may take a minor and a Torah scroll as appendix. Rebbi Judan said: So is the baraita: One may take a minor as appendix for the purpose of Torah reading.

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

Rebbi Zeïra went up to Rebbi Abbahu in Caesarea. When he met him he said: Come to eat. He [R. Abbahu] gave him a loaf to break and told him: Take it and recite the benediction. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The householder knows best the qualities of his loaf. After they had eaten, he [R. Abbahu] said to him: Start and recite Grace. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The rabbi knows Rav Huna who is a great man and he used to say that he who starts is the one who finishes. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna, as it was stated: “The order of washing of the hands. Up to five persons, one starts with the most important personality. More than that, one starts with the least important one. In the middle of the meal one starts with the most important one. After the meal one starts with him who will recite Grace.” Does that not mean that he may prepare himself for reciting Grace? If you say that the one who starts is the one who finishes, he already is prepared! Rebbi Isaac said, explain it for those who come separately and do not know who will recite Grace.

Here, a baraita states: “If he heard but did not answer, he did his duty. If he answered but did not hear, he did not do his duty.” Rav in the name of Abba bar Ḥana, or, as some say, Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rav, that is only if he answered the beginnings of chapters. Rebbi Zeïra inquired, what are beginnings of chapters? (Ps. 113:1) “Hallelujah, praise, you servants of the Eternal, praise the name of the Eternal.” They asked before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, from where do we know that if somebody heard but did not answer, that he fulfilled his duty? He said, because we see great rabbis acting accordingly. They stand in the congregation where some say (Ps. 118:26): “Blessed he who comes,” and the others say: “in the name of the Eternal,” and all have fulfilled their duty.

It was stated: He who urinates turns his face towards North. He who spreads his feet turns his face towards South. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, this baraita is from Mount Scopus towards the interior. Rebbi Aqiba says, everywhere but only where there is no wall. If was stated: He who spreads his feet should not face East with his back facing West but at an angle. Rebbi Yehudah says, when the Temple exists. Rebbi Yose said, from Mount Scopus towards the interior. Rebbi Aqiba says, everywhere but only where there is no wall.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: One does not say to him, bring camels and load up. The baraita speaks if he wants to give more than the measure, but if he gives according to the measure then one says to the poor to bring camels and load up. If his field is large and the poor few, he gives according to the field. His field is small and the poor many, he gives according to the poor. Rebbi Simeon explained two things to make it easy for the owner: If his field is large and the poor few, he gives according to the poor; if his field is small and the poor many, he gives according to the field. The Mishnah does not say so, but “everything is according to the size of the field, the poor, and the humility (yield).”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” Our Mishnah needs the one of the House of Rebbi and that of the House of Rebbi needs our Mishnah. If we had stated, but not the House of Rebbi, we would say that it said only “between olive trees”, which in themselves are subject to peah, but for those which are free from the obligation of peah even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. Hence, our Mishnah needs that of Rebbi. Or if there were the declaration of the House of Rebbi but we had not stated ours, we would say that it refers only to those which are between trees free from the obligation of peah, but for trees which in themselves are subject to peah even the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. Hence, both our Mishnah and the baraita of the House of Rebbi are needed.

Who is bedridden? Anyone who did not get sick suddenly. It is customary for the relatives to visit him immediately; unrelated persons visit him after three days. If he falls ill suddenly, everybody visits him immediately. A clarification: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose after three days. He said to them: Do you want to sustain the baraita in my case?

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna, a baraita supports Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan: “ A healthy person who wrote a will and a bedridden one who wrote a gift document may change their minds.” A healthy person who wrote a will may change his mind, even as long as he is healthy. Similarly, a bedridden person who wrote a gift document may change his mind, even while he still is bedridden.

Some Tannaïm state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits.”

Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. One said, one checks out before giving clothing but one does not check out for necessities of life. The other said, even before giving clothing one does not check out, because of the covenant of the patriarch Abraham. A baraita disagrees with him who says that even before giving clothing one does not check out. He explains it for giving him according to his status, as we have stated: “When has this been said? If they do not know him. But if they know him, they also clothe him, everything befitting his status.” But was it not stated: “For food thirty days, for clothing six months.” Explain it, to contribute. But was it not stated: “For food thirty days, for assessments and charity twelve months?” This means to contribute, the earlier must mean to receive. It still means to contribute; what does it mean, for assessments and charity twelve months? For the salaries of scribes and teachers.

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If they were kept in storage they are obligated.” Did they not essentially come from abandoned property? He explains it, if most people keep them in storage. Come and see, if most people keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are obligated, be it demay or certain. If most people do not keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are free, be it demay or certain. Half and half you cannot consider since we have stated: “Half and half is demay.” Rebbi Zeïra said, not only the easy ones for demay but even demay itself.

This is a baraita: “Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, as long as they are sold en bloc, are free. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the great Rebbi Yose sent me an etrog and said to me: this came into my hand from Caesarea. I understood from this three things: That it was certain, could become impure, and he did not have another one. That it was certain, because the fruits of Caesarea are certain. That it could become impure, because they sprinkle water on it. That he did not have another one, because if he had, he would have tithed from one on the other.” Why could he not have tithed from itself on itself? Because he was mindful of the saying of Bar Kappara, for Bar Kappara said that people do not send things that are defective to their friends. But is that not our Mishnah? “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.” This tells you that, even though he disagreed with the rabbis, he did not act according to his own opinion.

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

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary. Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary. Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These Cohanim and Levites, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ ‘Guard yourself’ means a prohibition. And it is written: There you should present, there you should perform.” Because that is written, otherwise I would have said it is a positive commandment. But that you should not say as you say regarding the Sabbath that if somebody dug a hole, made a ditch, and dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense, so similarly, if somebody slaughtered, sprinkled the blood, and presented he should be guilty only of one offense. Therefore, it is necessary to say that he is guilty for each action separately.

“But they are forbidden because of the bad impression.” Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room. A baraita contradicts Rav: “One should not make a visible fringe of linen dyed with soot, but for mattresses and pillows it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “If one’s coins were strewn before an idol he should not bow down to collect them lest he look as if he was prostrating himself before the idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “In a fortified place one should not put his face on gargoyles in the form of faces lest he look as if he was kissing an idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A Mishnah contradicts Rav: “One does not slaughter into a pit in the ground but he may dig a pit in his house so that the blood may be collected there. In public, he should not do it so as not to imitate the sectarians.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “Once he arrived at the outermost courtyard he may spread them out in the sun but not where it is generally visible.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “One does not pour water on the Sabbath into a sewage pipe covered the length of four cubits.” We have stated on this: If water was flowing in it it is permitted, in the winter it is permitted. If aquaeduct pipes spout it is forbidden. Bar Qappara stated that if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. All these statements contradict Rav and he cannot explain them.

“But they are forbidden because of the bad impression.” Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room. A baraita contradicts Rav: “One should not make a visible fringe of linen dyed with soot, but for mattresses and pillows it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “If one’s coins were strewn before an idol he should not bow down to collect them lest he look as if he was prostrating himself before the idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “In a fortified place one should not put his face on gargoyles in the form of faces lest he look as if he was kissing an idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A Mishnah contradicts Rav: “One does not slaughter into a pit in the ground but he may dig a pit in his house so that the blood may be collected there. In public, he should not do it so as not to imitate the sectarians.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “Once he arrived at the outermost courtyard he may spread them out in the sun but not where it is generally visible.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “One does not pour water on the Sabbath into a sewage pipe covered the length of four cubits.” We have stated on this: If water was flowing in it it is permitted, in the winter it is permitted. If aquaeduct pipes spout it is forbidden. Bar Qappara stated that if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. All these statements contradict Rav and he cannot explain them.

“But they are forbidden because of the bad impression.” Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room. A baraita contradicts Rav: “One should not make a visible fringe of linen dyed with soot, but for mattresses and pillows it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “If one’s coins were strewn before an idol he should not bow down to collect them lest he look as if he was prostrating himself before the idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “In a fortified place one should not put his face on gargoyles in the form of faces lest he look as if he was kissing an idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A Mishnah contradicts Rav: “One does not slaughter into a pit in the ground but he may dig a pit in his house so that the blood may be collected there. In public, he should not do it so as not to imitate the sectarians.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “Once he arrived at the outermost courtyard he may spread them out in the sun but not where it is generally visible.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “One does not pour water on the Sabbath into a sewage pipe covered the length of four cubits.” We have stated on this: If water was flowing in it it is permitted, in the winter it is permitted. If aquaeduct pipes spout it is forbidden. Bar Qappara stated that if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. All these statements contradict Rav and he cannot explain them.

“But they are forbidden because of the bad impression.” Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room. A baraita contradicts Rav: “One should not make a visible fringe of linen dyed with soot, but for mattresses and pillows it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “If one’s coins were strewn before an idol he should not bow down to collect them lest he look as if he was prostrating himself before the idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “In a fortified place one should not put his face on gargoyles in the form of faces lest he look as if he was kissing an idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A Mishnah contradicts Rav: “One does not slaughter into a pit in the ground but he may dig a pit in his house so that the blood may be collected there. In public, he should not do it so as not to imitate the sectarians.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “Once he arrived at the outermost courtyard he may spread them out in the sun but not where it is generally visible.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “One does not pour water on the Sabbath into a sewage pipe covered the length of four cubits.” We have stated on this: If water was flowing in it it is permitted, in the winter it is permitted. If aquaeduct pipes spout it is forbidden. Bar Qappara stated that if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. All these statements contradict Rav and he cannot explain them.

“But they are forbidden because of the bad impression.” Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room. A baraita contradicts Rav: “One should not make a visible fringe of linen dyed with soot, but for mattresses and pillows it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “If one’s coins were strewn before an idol he should not bow down to collect them lest he look as if he was prostrating himself before the idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “In a fortified place one should not put his face on gargoyles in the form of faces lest he look as if he was kissing an idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A Mishnah contradicts Rav: “One does not slaughter into a pit in the ground but he may dig a pit in his house so that the blood may be collected there. In public, he should not do it so as not to imitate the sectarians.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “Once he arrived at the outermost courtyard he may spread them out in the sun but not where it is generally visible.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “One does not pour water on the Sabbath into a sewage pipe covered the length of four cubits.” We have stated on this: If water was flowing in it it is permitted, in the winter it is permitted. If aquaeduct pipes spout it is forbidden. Bar Qappara stated that if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. All these statements contradict Rav and he cannot explain them.

“How long are they called saplings, etc.” What means “until they become profane”? Until they are redeemed or until they become profane by themselves. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah means “until they become profane by themselves.” Rebbi Yudan said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joshua: “ Rebbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rebbi Yudan said, according to Rebbi we throw it on its width.

It was stated: “One strings and spreads.” So is the baraita: One strings vines and spreads them on the poles. “At a place where one usually strings and spreads before Sukkot one strings and spreads before Sukkot; after Sukkot, one strings and spreads after Sukkot. Rebbi Simeon says, only higher than the notch.”

HALAKHAH: Not only if the plough displaced them, but even if the plough might displace them in the future. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so: “They may be taken if among all of them there are two which are a two-person load”.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody thins out olive trees,” etc. What is thinning? He removes one and leaves two, or removes two and leaves one. It was stated by the House of Rebbi: He removes one and leaves two. But did we not state: If somebody levels among vines, three adjacent to one another. Therefore, thinning must mean that one removes two and leaves one. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita when he thins out the first time, and what was stated by the House of Rebbi when he already had thinned.

“ The palm pith is wood in every respect except that it may be bought with tithe money. Palm spathe used as food is free from tithes.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi explained in the study house: Palm pith is not subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. But Rebbi Yose commanded about those who were asking; they said that it was said from his part. He made them say that Rebbi Yose told them, a baraita disagrees with Rebbi Judah ben Pazi and supports us, as it was stated: “One may not cook unripe figs of the Sabbatical year but it is permitted for the late ones because that is their treatment.”

Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Mishnah deals with the leaves of false arum. Rav Hoshaiah brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: “The leaves of arum or of onions.” Can you speak of leaves of false onions? The word of Rebbi Jeremiah implies that anything subject to removal found inside something not subject to removal is subject to removal. How does Rebbi Jeremiah deal with this? He explains it if he trampled on the leaves.

“If it was in the ground three years, he gives one quarter to the poor. Two years, he gives one half to the poor.” Rebbi Yose explains the baraita before New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical, Rebbi Ḥizqiah explains the Mishnah [as dealing with] the eve of New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

It was stated: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are Sabbatical.” Rebbi Zeïra said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? That they may take their wages in the form of Sabbatical produce. Then it must be that, when Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai not to take the wages of their oil presses in wine but in money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Hila: the baraita deals with those who carry forbidden produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? As Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined him with wine of libations; here also, they fined him.

It was stated: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are Sabbatical.” Rebbi Zeïra said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? That they may take their wages in the form of Sabbatical produce. Then it must be that, when Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai not to take the wages of their oil presses in wine but in money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Hila: the baraita deals with those who carry forbidden produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? As Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined him with wine of libations; here also, they fined him.

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

Is Sabbatical straw forbidden as aftergrowth? Rebbi Levi from Sennabaris asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda and he permitted it. Rebbi Zeïra said, since I did not want to rely on myself I asked those from Beit Barsana and they said, we used to collect straw before the start of the Sabbatical and when we are running out, we bring it from the walls. Rebbi Jeremiah said, a baraita states that it is permitted, as it was stated: “Dyers and cattle feeders may buy coarse bran from everywhere without worry.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, even from one who is suspect. Rebbi Yose said to him, they said that only if he does not know whether he is suspect. Only if he might not be suspect; therefore if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden. Rebbi Shammai said, a Mishnah says that it is forbidden, as we have stated there: “In matters of Sabbatical, kilaim in a vineyard, or dedicated things, if there is enough in both seed and wood to give taste.”

“If somebody established a lien on a field for his wife but then went and sold it, if she wishes she collects from this field or she collects from any other property.” Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Eleazar instructed following this baraita. The colleagues asked: Should she not collect only from the properties that are under the lien? Rebbi Yose said to them, there are unencumbered properties and you say, those under the lien? The baraita [applies] if he did not say you shall be paid only from this. But when he said, you shall be paid only from this, she may collect only from this.

“If somebody established a lien on a field for his wife but then went and sold it, if she wishes she collects from this field or she collects from any other property.” Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Eleazar instructed following this baraita. The colleagues asked: Should she not collect only from the properties that are under the lien? Rebbi Yose said to them, there are unencumbered properties and you say, those under the lien? The baraita [applies] if he did not say you shall be paid only from this. But when he said, you shall be paid only from this, she may collect only from this.

It was stated: “If somebody mortgages a field to a woman for her ketubah or a creditor for his claim and then sells it, that is sold and the buyer should beware for himself” This baraita if he said to her: you should be paid from this. They disagree if he says, you should only be paid from this.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others fulfill his written instructions? They upheld it, if he is illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or he told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the document] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, here also it is invalid. Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your agent. Just as you are in the Covenant, so your agent must be in the Covenant. You appoint an agent, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Assi wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint another Gentile as agent, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint an agent: does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint an agent: not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Therefore, if he wants to, he may give heave. Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

HALAKHAH: “One seah of impure heave”, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Ṭevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.” Ṭevel, one lifts and gives a name to his tithes. The aftergrowth of the Sabbatical should be given to those who may eat it. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so: “A seah of heave that fell into less than one hundred may be lifted …”. Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from ṭevel?

It was stated: “One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said, one may collect to lift one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeїra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

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

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

It was stated: “A group of people on the road were met by Gentiles who said to them, give us one of you that we may kill him, otherwise we shall kill all of you; even if all of them are killed they should not hand over a Jewish person. If they designated one, like Sheba ben Bikhri, they should hand him over so as not to be killed.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, on condition that he be guilty of a capital crime like Sheba ben Bikhri; but Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he is not guilty of a capital crime like Sheba ben Bikhri. Ulla bar Qoshav was proscribed by the government. He fled and went to Lydda to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They came and surrounded the city. They said to them, if you do not hand him over to us, we shall destroy the city. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi went to him and talked him into being handed over to them. Elijah, may be be remembered for good things, used to appear to him; he stopped appearing. He fasted many fasts; he appeared to him and said, do I appear to informers? He said to him, did I not act according to a baraita? He said to him, is that a statement for the pious?

May one roast two spits together in one oven, one of kosher meat and one of carcass meat? Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, it is forbidden. Samuel said in the name of Levi, it is permitted. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “One may not roast two Passover sacrifices together in one oven because they could be mixed up.” They said only, because they could be mixed up; therefore, not if they could not be mixed up.

“If he was eating when night fell Friday evening or when he gave it to another person it did not become ṭevel.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, when it was put on pitta bread or into a bowl, but when it was in a flask it became ṭevel. Rebbi Yose said, even in a flask it did not become ṭevel. Rebbi Jeremiah said to him, does not the Sabbath create ṭevel? He answered him, does not buying create ṭevel? He retorted, following what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said a person may stand near the muqẓeh on a Friday of a Sabbatical year and say, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” He mentioned only the Sabbatical year; that exludes the other years of the Sabbatical cycle. How does Rebbi Jeremiah argue about this? You cannot return it to its place as muqẓeh, therefore it creates ṭevel. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi (Jeremiah): There are no snacks on the Sabbath. He explains it, anything that has muqẓeh. In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, whether it has muqẓeh or does not have muqẓeh.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: So did Rebbi Jehudah disprove Rebbi Meїr[’s argument]: Do you not concede to me that one who gives to his son is free? What is the difference between gathering and giving to his son or gathering and giving to another person? Rebbi Yudan asked: What did you see to say ‘if he gathers and delivers,’ can we not say ‘if he gathers and eats’? Rebbi Mana said, there cannot be “if he gathers and eats”, only “if he gathers and delivers,” because of that rose garden. Can you say the rose garden [is a case of] gathering and eating? No, gathering and delivering! There also, he gathers and delivers because he would say to him, if you enter you will damage its roses! A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Mana’s argument: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the orchard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description.’ ”

It was stated: All that was brought from the field to town became ṭevel. The baraita is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them in his unprotected courtyard, then forgot and brought them into his house or the children brought them, he may bring them back to their intended place and eat.” They said that only concerning error; therefore, if intentional it is forbidden. Who stated this? Rebbi! As it was stated: “ If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them on his roof, Rebbi obligates, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah frees.” It is as it was stated, “if somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces;” therefore, if it is not to cut into pieces he is obligated.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.” In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.

“In that year” you take it out from impure for pure but in other years you do not take it out from impure for pure. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is that baraita: “ ‘In that year’ you have to take it from an impure place to a pure but in other years you do not have to take it from an impure place to a pure.” This statement of Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to vote not to give tithe to Cohanim. They said, why should we come to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since he will help the Levites. He came and helped the Cohanim and said: In 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them (Ez. 44:15): “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ẓadoq.”

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him (Lev. 23:14): “Until that day proper,” which teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” And we have stated: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan [ben Zakkai] instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.

Rebbi Yose said, the word of Rebbi Abinna supports me, since Rebbi Abinna said, explain it following this baraita: “In a place where one does not usually work on the 14th, but not in a place where one is used to work on the 14th.” If it is cut; maybe also when it is standing? It was found stated: “In a place where people are used to work on cut produce, one may work even on standing grain.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

Rebbi Yose said, even three years old it will not have the thickness of a tenter’s needle. Rebbi Yudan said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “Rebbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rebbi Yudan said, according to Rebbi Tryphon we throw it on its width.

There, we have stated: “If a seah of heave fell into 100 and one milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted.” It was stated: [“One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said,] he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeïra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

It was stated: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land.” Samuel explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden.

It was stated: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land.” Samuel explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

Cahana asked Rebbi Zeïra: A layman who ate heave? He said to him, it is a deadly sin. After he had prayed, he said to him (Lev. 22:3): “I am the Eternal” closed the statement. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A layman who ate heave committed a deadly sin. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Those who eat heave intentionally, whether pure [person] eating pure [heave], or impure eating impure, or pure eating impure, or impure eating pure, have commited a deadly sin. Cohanim eating heave, pure [person] eating pure [heave] fulfills its commandment; pure eating impure [has violated] a positive commandment; impure eating pure or impure eating impure [has violated] a prohibition. What did you see to say that a pure [person] eating impure [heave has violated] a positive commandment? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, (Lev. 22:7) “Afterwards he shall eat of the hallowed [food]”, of what is pure but not of what is impure. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

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

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

“Nor read by candlelight”. Samuel said, they stated that only for a single person. Therefore for two, who can hinder one another, it is permitted. Samuel’s baraita disagrees with him: “Both a light which he can turn as one which he cannot turn.” Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even many. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar even if it is very high, even if it is in (one) house, even if it is on a look-out.

“They both agree,” etc. Rebbi Samuel and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, because every single drop was moved from its place. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, may one touch the flow? The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagreed; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden; Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, it is permitted. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: They both agree that one may not touch the flow.