ben

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

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.

And it is difficult about Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If one took [tools] to harvest but did not harvest, is that perhaps anything? Rebbi Ada said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: “One who hits or smooths a piece of weaving is liable. He is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

And it is difficult about Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If one took [tools] to harvest but did not harvest, is that perhaps anything? Rebbi Ada said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: “One who hits or smooths a piece of weaving is liable. He is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

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.

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.

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.

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 Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. You understand from here two things. You understand something which has no fixed number, or that is apt to being changed, only if the act is meritorious. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if the act is meritorious, for example his sister-in-law which is menstruating and he slept with her. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the act is [not] meritorious, for example two spits, one with slaughtered meat, the other with carcass meat, and he intended to eat from one but ate from the other. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.” In this case the act is not meritorious and Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Samuel from Cappadocia said, the next day it is meritorious.

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.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed, also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed, also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable.

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.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies, and it needs {losing its} shape.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies, and it needs {losing its} shape.

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

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: This implies that a person is forbidden to say to another, here you have money and use it to buy meat for Pesaḥ for yourself. But he may say to him, here you have money and buy me meat to roast.

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

Does Rabban Gamliel not have fire roasted? He does. The Pesaḥ in Egypt was fire roasted; the Pesaḥ for generations is not fire roasted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Gamliel did not consider consequences of fire as fire; the rabbis consider consequences of fire as fire. Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and in practice acts on his own opinion.

“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.

Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joshua: One verse says, but a firstling of cattle, or a firstling of sheep, or a firstling of goats, etc. And another verse says the Cohen shall pour the blood on the Eternal’s altar at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasant smell before the Eternal. Only if there be there either meat be be eaten or parts to be burned. There we have stated: “If the remainders became impure, the remainders were burned, the remainders were lost. In the rules of Rebbi Eliezer it is qualified, in the rules of Rebbi Joshua it is disqualified. [Not in a vessel of service it is disqualified; Rebbi Ismael qualifies. If he burned the fistful in two parts it is qualified.”] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; even though if there is no meat there is blood. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, even though if there are no remainders there is a fistful. In Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; if there is no meat there is no blood. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, if there are no remainders there is no fistful. Rebbi Mana said, explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, even though there are no remainders there is a fistful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, Rebbi Joshua agrees that if he transgressed and poured the blood that it was made acceptable.

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.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ruling they went after the population of the Land of Israel; for impurity they went after a majority of those entering the Temple courtyard. Does one estimate according to all groups or does one estimate only for the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have to estimate by themselves as long as they are outside. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, for appearance they went from Lavo-Hamat to the Brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, At that time Solomon made the pilgrimage holiday, and all of Israel with him, etc.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ruling they went after the population of the Land of Israel; for impurity they went after a majority of those entering the Temple courtyard. Does one estimate according to all groups or does one estimate only for the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have to estimate by themselves as long as they are outside. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, for appearance they went from Lavo-Hamat to the Brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, At that time Solomon made the pilgrimage holiday, and all of Israel with him, etc.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ruling they went after the population of the Land of Israel; for impurity they went after a majority of those entering the Temple courtyard. Does one estimate according to all groups or does one estimate only for the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have to estimate by themselves as long as they are outside. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, for appearance they went from Lavo-Hamat to the Brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, At that time Solomon made the pilgrimage holiday, and all of Israel with him, etc.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ruling they went after the population of the Land of Israel; for impurity they went after a majority of those entering the Temple courtyard. Does one estimate according to all groups or does one estimate only for the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have to estimate by themselves as long as they are outside. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, for appearance they went from Lavo-Hamat to the Brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, At that time Solomon made the pilgrimage holiday, and all of Israel with him, etc.

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevices, it does not create a grave of the abyss.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevices, it does not create a grave of the abyss.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

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 Joḥanan said, a tower was standing on the Temple Mount which was called “citadel”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the entire Temple Mount was called citadel, to do everything and to build the citadel which I prepared.

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left or which became impure has to be burned immediately. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

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.

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which left or which became impure has to be burned immediately. If the owners became impure or died it shall lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, this one also has to be burned immediately since it has no eaters.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and cut? Not to break under the flesh.

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.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: the tunnels under the Temple were profane, the Temple roofs were sanctified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A Mishnah says so, “there was a fireplace there, and an honorable bathroom. [What was its honor? If one found it locked, one knew that it was occupied, unlocked one knew that it was unoccupied.”] Rebbi Yose said, is excrement impure? Is it not simply cleanliness? But the following is it, “he leaves and goes in the walkway under the Temple, and lights were burning on both sides, until he comes to the place of immersion.” If it were sanctified he would have to go by the shortest way.

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.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this about the follow-holiday. What is the follow-holiday? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is the first holiday when her father follows her to her husband’s house. If she did not go for the first holiday, does the second holiday become the follow-holiday? She always has a follow-holiday. Does a widow have a follow-holiday? Let us hear from the following: “If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday.” Either this means that she always has a follow-holiday or it means that a widow has a follow-holiday. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that she has children but no husband. Normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this about the follow-holiday. What is the follow-holiday? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is the first holiday when her father follows her to her husband’s house. If she did not go for the first holiday, does the second holiday become the follow-holiday? She always has a follow-holiday. Does a widow have a follow-holiday? Let us hear from the following: “If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday.” Either this means that she always has a follow-holiday or it means that a widow has a follow-holiday. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that she has children but no husband. Normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining \others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? Every man a sheep for the family, if they want for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, every man a sheep for the family, a fortiori for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not a woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining \others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? Every man a sheep for the family, if they want for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, every man a sheep for the family, a fortiori for the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not a woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

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.

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.

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 Joḥanan said, the season of Rebbi Jehudah: You may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one of your gates How does Rebbi Yose interpret Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? He explains it following Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthew, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says, I could think that a single person clinches for impurity, the verse says, you may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah concedes that if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable; if he transgressed and slaughtered one permits him to pour.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah is about one who newly became a deep mourner between slaughter and pouring. But if he became a deep mourner after atonement it already was accepted.

And it was stated: “What is deep mourning? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What leniencies following Rebbi? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour, following the rabbis he is forbiddden the entire day. Leniencies following the rabbis? If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥuna, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning [in the night] is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening.” But they declared deep mourning during daytime as biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simon ben Joṣadaq: It is written, the song shall be for you like the night at the start of the holiday ofpilgrimage. The Passover night comes to instruct about the downfall of Sanherib and taken instruction from it. Since the one needs Hallel. so the other needs Hallel. But then since the one needs a sacrifice of pilgrimage, does the other need a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Rebbi Zeˋira said, like the night at the start of the holiday of pilgrimage, anything needing Hallel needs a sacrifice of pilgrimage; anything not needing Hallel does not need a sacrifice of pilgrimage.

It was stated: Ben Bag-bag says, a perfect lamb, shorn is not perfect. But was it not stated, of small cattle, to exclude the smooth of them. Rebbi Abun said, to exclude those which the Torah separated, the male or female used for bestiality, one dedicated for idolatrous worship, and one worshipped.

If he substituted for it on the Thirteenth, Rebbi Zeˋira said, the substitute is brought as a well-being offering; Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the substitute is not brought as a well-being offering. The strength of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is from the following: “after the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering.” If you are saying, if he substituted for it on the Thirteenth and the substitute is brought as a well-being offering, is it not better to infer the {rules of the} substitute of a Pesaḥ from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ than to infer the [rules of the] substitute of a well-being sacrifice from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ?

If he substituted for it on the Thirteenth, Rebbi Zeˋira said, the substitute is brought as a well-being offering; Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the substitute is not brought as a well-being offering. The strength of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is from the following: “after the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering.” If you are saying, if he substituted for it on the Thirteenth and the substitute is brought as a well-being offering, is it not better to infer the {rules of the} substitute of a Pesaḥ from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ than to infer the [rules of the] substitute of a well-being sacrifice from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ?

“The offspring of a purification offering,” as they disagreed: If the community dedicated a female, and so the prince who dedicated a she-goat, Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is not dedicated and its offspring may be offered; Rebbi Yose said, it is dedicated and its offspring must die. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following: “You cannot speak about the offspring of a purification offering of the community, since the community does not bring a female.” He only said, “you cannot speak about”; therefore if he dedicated it it is dedicated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Is it not Rebbi Simeon’s? As Rebbi Simeon said, a female as elevation offering is dedicated only for its money’s worth.

“And the substitute of a purification offering,” as they disagreed: if he substituted for it on the Thirteenth, Rebbi Zeˋira said, the substitute is brought as a well-being offering; Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the substitute is not brought as a well-being offering.

HALAKHAH: “In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “On Sabbath Eve starting at the time of afternoon prayers one should not taste anything until nightfall in order to enter the Sabbath with an appetite, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he continues eating until he finishes.” “One interrupts for the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, one does not interrupt.” “It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta were lying on couches in Acco on Sabbath Eve, and in the meantime the Sabbath became holy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta, do you want to interrupt for the Sabbath? He answered him, the entire day you preferred my words over those of Rebbi Jehudah, and now you are preferring the words of Rebbi Jehudah over mine, also to rape the queen in my palace? He said to him, therefore we shall not interrupt, that practice in Israel should not be fixed following R. Jehudah. They did not leave there before they fixed practice following Rebbi Yose.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: These are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages, one spreads a cloth and makes qiddush. May one eat kinds of cookies? May one eat kinds of dried fruit? Rebbi Yudan the Prince bathed and became thirsty. He asked Rebbi Mana, since I am thirsty, may I drink? He told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A person may not taste anything before nightfall.

HALAKHAH: “In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “On Sabbath Eve starting at the time of afternoon prayers one should not taste anything until nightfall in order to enter the Sabbath with an appetite, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he continues eating until he finishes.” “One interrupts for the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, one does not interrupt.” “It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta were lying on couches in Acco on Sabbath Eve, and in the meantime the Sabbath became holy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta, do you want to interrupt for the Sabbath? He answered him, the entire day you preferred my words over those of Rebbi Jehudah, and now you are preferring the words of Rebbi Jehudah over mine, also to rape the queen in my palace? He said to him, therefore we shall not interrupt, that practice in Israel should not be fixed following R. Jehudah. They did not leave there before they fixed practice following Rebbi Yose.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: These are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages, one spreads a cloth and makes qiddush. May one eat kinds of cookies? May one eat kinds of dried fruit? Rebbi Yudan the Prince bathed and became thirsty. He asked Rebbi Mana, since I am thirsty, may I drink? He told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A person may not taste anything before nightfall.

HALAKHAH: “In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “On Sabbath Eve starting at the time of afternoon prayers one should not taste anything until nightfall in order to enter the Sabbath with an appetite, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he continues eating until he finishes.” “One interrupts for the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, one does not interrupt.” “It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta were lying on couches in Acco on Sabbath Eve, and in the meantime the Sabbath became holy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta, do you want to interrupt for the Sabbath? He answered him, the entire day you preferred my words over those of Rebbi Jehudah, and now you are preferring the words of Rebbi Jehudah over mine, also to rape the queen in my palace? He said to him, therefore we shall not interrupt, that practice in Israel should not be fixed following R. Jehudah. They did not leave there before they fixed practice following Rebbi Yose.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: These are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages, one spreads a cloth and makes qiddush. May one eat kinds of cookies? May one eat kinds of dried fruit? Rebbi Yudan the Prince bathed and became thirsty. He asked Rebbi Mana, since I am thirsty, may I drink? He told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A person may not taste anything before nightfall.

HALAKHAH: “In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “On Sabbath Eve starting at the time of afternoon prayers one should not taste anything until nightfall in order to enter the Sabbath with an appetite, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he continues eating until he finishes.” “One interrupts for the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, one does not interrupt.” “It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta were lying on couches in Acco on Sabbath Eve, and in the meantime the Sabbath became holy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta, do you want to interrupt for the Sabbath? He answered him, the entire day you preferred my words over those of Rebbi Jehudah, and now you are preferring the words of Rebbi Jehudah over mine, also to rape the queen in my palace? He said to him, therefore we shall not interrupt, that practice in Israel should not be fixed following R. Jehudah. They did not leave there before they fixed practice following Rebbi Yose.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: These are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages, one spreads a cloth and makes qiddush. May one eat kinds of cookies? May one eat kinds of dried fruit? Rebbi Yudan the Prince bathed and became thirsty. He asked Rebbi Mana, since I am thirsty, may I drink? He told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A person may not taste anything before nightfall.

Rebbi Levi said, he who eats mazzah on Passover Eve is like one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house, and he who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is flogged. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, both bread and mazzah are forbidden. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Rebbi ate neither bread nor mazzah. No mazzah because of that of Rebbi Levi, and no bread because of that of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Was Rebbi a student of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra? No, he was a student of Rebbi Jacob ben Qorshai. But it was because he was a firstborn. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah was a firstborn and he ate. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, it is neither for this nor for that reason; Rebbi was asthenic and when he ate during the day, he could not eat in the night. Why did he not eat during this day? To enter the Sabbath with appetite.

Rebbi Levi said, he who eats mazzah on Passover Eve is like one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house, and he who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is flogged. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, both bread and mazzah are forbidden. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Rebbi ate neither bread nor mazzah. No mazzah because of that of Rebbi Levi, and no bread because of that of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Was Rebbi a student of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra? No, he was a student of Rebbi Jacob ben Qorshai. But it was because he was a firstborn. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah was a firstborn and he ate. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, it is neither for this nor for that reason; Rebbi was asthenic and when he ate during the day, he could not eat in the night. Why did he not eat during this day? To enter the Sabbath with appetite.

Rebbi Levi said, he who eats mazzah on Passover Eve is like one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house, and he who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is flogged. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, both bread and mazzah are forbidden. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Rebbi ate neither bread nor mazzah. No mazzah because of that of Rebbi Levi, and no bread because of that of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Was Rebbi a student of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra? No, he was a student of Rebbi Jacob ben Qorshai. But it was because he was a firstborn. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah was a firstborn and he ate. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, it is neither for this nor for that reason; Rebbi was asthenic and when he ate during the day, he could not eat in the night. Why did he not eat during this day? To enter the Sabbath with appetite.

Rebbi Levi said, he who eats mazzah on Passover Eve is like one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house, and he who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is flogged. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, both bread and mazzah are forbidden. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Rebbi ate neither bread nor mazzah. No mazzah because of that of Rebbi Levi, and no bread because of that of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Was Rebbi a student of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra? No, he was a student of Rebbi Jacob ben Qorshai. But it was because he was a firstborn. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah was a firstborn and he ate. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, it is neither for this nor for that reason; Rebbi was asthenic and when he ate during the day, he could not eat in the night. Why did he not eat during this day? To enter the Sabbath with appetite.

Rebbi Levi said, he who eats mazzah on Passover Eve is like one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house, and he who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is flogged. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, both bread and mazzah are forbidden. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Rebbi ate neither bread nor mazzah. No mazzah because of that of Rebbi Levi, and no bread because of that of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Was Rebbi a student of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra? No, he was a student of Rebbi Jacob ben Qorshai. But it was because he was a firstborn. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah was a firstborn and he ate. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, it is neither for this nor for that reason; Rebbi was asthenic and when he ate during the day, he could not eat in the night. Why did he not eat during this day? To enter the Sabbath with appetite.

Rebbi Levi said, because usually slaves eat while standing, and here one is forced to eat lying on couches, to proclaim that they went from slavery to freedom. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This olive-sized bit with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover he must eat lying down. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Simon, even a slave before his master, even a woman before her husband? He said to him, great personality, that is all I heard.

From where the Four Cups? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Corresponding to the four deliveries: Therefore, say to the Children of Israel, I am the Eternal, and I shall take you out, etc. And I shall take you as My people, etc. I shall take you, I shall save you, I shall free you, I shall take you. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, corresponding to the four cups of Pharao: The cup of Pharao was in my hand; I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharao ’s cup, and gave the cup in Pharao ’s hand. You will give the cup in the hand of Pharao. Rebbi Levi said, corresponding to the four kingdoms. But our teachers say, corresponding to the four cups of doom that the Holy One, praise to Him, will make the Gentiles drink at the end of days. Truly, so said the Eternal, the God of Israel, to me: take this cup of the wine of wrath. The golden cup of Babylon is in the hand of the Eternal. Truly a cup is in the hand of the Eternal, intoxicating wine, fully to be mixed; He shall sprinkle from it but its dregs shall be drunk, squeezed to the last, by all the wicked of the earth. He shall let coals rain on the wicked; fire, sulphur, and burning wind is the portion of their cup. What does the portion of their cup mean? R. Abun said: a double cup like the double cup taken after a thermal bath. And in accordance with this correspondingly the Holy One, praised be He, will let Israel drink four cups of consolation at the End of Days: The Eternal is the portion of my part and my cup. You anointed my head with oil; my cup is overflowing. I shall lift up the cup of salvations counts for two.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s. As it was stated “Water, a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for the mixer’s mixing. Mixed by how much? Let us hear from the following: “Water. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” What is the measure of cups? Rebbi Abun said, τέταρτον is a quarter.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he not say, the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged, and diminished, but it was not made small as before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. It was stated, dried like the volume of an olive, the words of Rebbi Nathan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he not say, the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged, and diminished, but it was not made small as before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. It was stated, dried like the volume of an olive, the words of Rebbi Nathan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: There, they have the custom that at a place without wine, the reader descends before the Ark, recites one benediction that contains seven, and closes by “He Who sanctifies Israel and the Sabbath Day”.

MISHNAH: They bring before him vegetables and Romaine lettuce. One dips Romaine lettuce, until he comes to filling the bread, when one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, and two dishes, even though haroset is not an obligation; Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Sadoq says, it is an obligation. In the Temple one brings before him the body of the Pesaḥ.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.