bun

Bune, or Bimé.—The Twenty-sixth Spirit is Buné (or Bim). He is a Strong, Great and Mighty Duke. He appeareth in the form of a Dragon with three heads, one like a Dog, one like a Gryphon, and one like a Man. He speaketh with a high and comely Voice. He changeth the Place of the Dead, and causeth the Spirits which be under him to gather together upon your Sepulchres. He giveth Riches unto a Man, and maketh him Wise and Eloquent. He giveth true Answers unto Demands. And he governeth 30 Legions of Spirits. His Seal is this, unto the which he oweth Obedience. He hath another Seal (which is the first of these, but the last is the best).

When Rebbi Abun bar Rebbi Ḥiyya died, Rebbi Zeïra ascended his pulpit and eulogized him: (Eccl. 5:11) “Sweet is the year of the worker.” It does not say here “sleeps” but “whether he eats little or much.” To what can Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya be likened? To a king who hired many workers and there was one worker who was exceptionally productive in his work. What did the king do? He took him and walked with him the long and the short. In the evening, the workers came to receive their wages and he gave him his total wages with them. The workers complained and said: we were toiling the entire day and this one did toil only for two hours and he gave him his total wages with us! The king told them: This one produced in two hours more than what you produced all day long. So Rebbi Bun produced in Torah in 28 years what an outstanding student cannot learn in a hundred years.

When Rebbi Abun bar Rebbi Ḥiyya died, Rebbi Zeïra ascended his pulpit and eulogized him: (Eccl. 5:11) “Sweet is the year of the worker.” It does not say here “sleeps” but “whether he eats little or much.” To what can Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya be likened? To a king who hired many workers and there was one worker who was exceptionally productive in his work. What did the king do? He took him and walked with him the long and the short. In the evening, the workers came to receive their wages and he gave him his total wages with them. The workers complained and said: we were toiling the entire day and this one did toil only for two hours and he gave him his total wages with us! The king told them: This one produced in two hours more than what you produced all day long. So Rebbi Bun produced in Torah in 28 years what an outstanding student cannot learn in a hundred years.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not roast meat, onions, or an egg, unless they be roasted when it still is daylight,” etc. Rebbi Bun bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis: A dish which is fully cooked one may leave on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: Meat, onion, and egg shrink and it is bad for them. This one is shrinking and it is good for it, and you say so? Maybe this was said only for hot water. Rebbi Samuel came, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: It is forbidden to leave hot water which was fully heated on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dish of beef which was cooked as Ben Derosai’s food one may return on a cooking stove covered with ashes. This comes like what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One warns somebody who puts a pot on top of coals. When it will be cooked as Ben Derosai’s food it is forbidden. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: Hot water which was fully heated one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: To leave on is forbidden but to return is permitted? Maybe it was only said for the Passover sacrifice. There Rebbi Aḥa in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: The Passover sacrifice which was fully roasted one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes.

[Rebbi] Aḥa told him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One does not use as support any Mishnah which is not accepted by a group. Rebbi Yose said, it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, even you have to say that it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on either side. (Rav) [Rebbi Mar] Uqba in the name of the rabbis there: They are considered only for the large one but are not considered for the small one.

They wanted to say that Rebbi Meïr would admit to Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Jehudah will not admit to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Meïr will admit to Rebbi Jehudah? Does not Rebbi Meïr have simple poles, and you are saying so? If you are making double columns but no straight poles, he would think, perhaps a partition for the Sabbath is made in this way; he would make it in other places and become liable. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Neither of them yields to the other. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose (about) did not say this, he said something similar. Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Bun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: How far away does a double column have to be so it would not need a straight [plank]? He told him, less than three [hand-breadths] is considered closed, more than six is far away. Therefore we have to consider from three to four. If you would say that Rebbi Meïr yields to Rebbi Jehudah, should he not make a double column far away and not need a simple [plank]? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rebbi Meïr requires simple [planks] only according to Rebbi Jehudah’s method. Rebbi Yose said, even according to his own method, since in any case what is standing is not more than what is breached. Since what is standing should be more than what is breached it needs a simple [plank].

They wanted to say that Rebbi Meïr would admit to Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Jehudah will not admit to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Meïr will admit to Rebbi Jehudah? Does not Rebbi Meïr have simple poles, and you are saying so? If you are making double columns but no straight poles, he would think, perhaps a partition for the Sabbath is made in this way; he would make it in other places and become liable. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Neither of them yields to the other. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose (about) did not say this, he said something similar. Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Bun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: How far away does a double column have to be so it would not need a straight [plank]? He told him, less than three [hand-breadths] is considered closed, more than six is far away. Therefore we have to consider from three to four. If you would say that Rebbi Meïr yields to Rebbi Jehudah, should he not make a double column far away and not need a simple [plank]? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rebbi Meïr requires simple [planks] only according to Rebbi Jehudah’s method. Rebbi Yose said, even according to his own method, since in any case what is standing is not more than what is breached. Since what is standing should be more than what is breached it needs a simple [plank].

We heard about partitions in a private domain, we heard about partitions in a public domain. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall is surrounded by ladders on both sides, one makes two eruvin and may not make one eruv. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, since they are not at the same place, are they like doors?

It was stated: Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia says, if a balcony protrudes over the sea, one opens the floor covering, lowers down, and fills. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Only if the hole is four hand-breadths long, and only if it is four hand-breadths wide, and if the walls are ten hand-breadths high. There they are saying, even if the partitions are not ten hand-breadths high it is made like a funnel. Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Ḥiyya: One is permitted to fill but forbidden to pour out. He said to him, when we will ordain Sages, we shall ordain you with them. Rebbi Mana said, he shouted at him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, did he not say to him that one is permitted to fill, since he fills inside his partition, but forbidden to pour out, for he pours outside of his partition?

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized. Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified. But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today, even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated. But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals.

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

Rebbi Mana said, I heard from Rebbi Yudan and from all the rabbis, why does one honor the lower house? So that divisions should not grow in Israel. Three put down their crowns in this world and inherited the life of the Future World. And these are: Jonathan the son of Saul, and Eleazar ben Azariah, and the Elders of Bathyra. Jonathan the son of Saul. Rebbi La said, even the women behind the loom did know that David would rule in the future. Eleazar ben Azaria was Second in rank. There are among these only the Elders of Bathyra who freed themselves of the Patriarchate and appointed him Patriarch. The rabbis of Caesarea said, also Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris for Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai said, all my days I fled from authority. Now that I entered, anybody who would remove me I would treat like a water kettle. As the kettle burns, and injures, and chars, so I would treat him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, heaven forbid that he wanted this. But he said, who could tell me that he would sanctify the Name of Heaven as I am doing.

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.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

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

One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasts, and working.”

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a widow need ḥalîṣah? He said to him, is it possible to say that her qiddushin are legally recognized and you say she may not need ḥalîṣah? He answered him: But qiddushin of a she-ram are legally recognized and one says that she does not need ḥalîṣah! He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children.

Instead of inferring from his wife’s sister that all women under incest prohibitions remain prohibited, deduce from his brother’s wife that all women under incest prohibitions become permitted! Rebbi Mana said,one infers two prohibitions from two prohibitions but one does not infer two prohibitions from one prohibition. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun: For anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for anything not induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. What is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, e. g., those fifteen categories of women. That you should not say that his daughter is forbidden to him before she is married to his brother; once she is married to his brother she is permitted to him.

Who permits the earlier ones? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, the one who permitted these permitted those. As the following: The Head of the Diaspora sent and asked Rav Ḥisdai: what is the meaning of “taking away the head cover, removing the crown”? He said to him, when the head cover was taken away, the crown was removed. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, he is grace and his words are gracious.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught that about the pursueds’ holiday. What is the pursueds’ holiday? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, that is the first holiday when her father drives her to her husband’s house.

“Did you warn him?” From where warning? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: A man who would take his sister …, it is ḥesed. Rebbi Bun said, Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister. It is charitable, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; I said, the world was to be built on ḥesed.

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

Rebbi Bun asked, if he did not know at the end, how could be bring a sacrifice? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the end, let it refer to knowledge at the beginning. They objected: Is it not written, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring? Then if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end! Explain it as referring to those who are obligated for certain purification and reparation offerings for which the Day of Atonement has passed who have to bring after the day of Atonement, while those obligated for suspended reparation sacrifices are no longer liable. The verse says, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring even after the Day of Atonement.

If it is so, what does the Day of Atonement help him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, the Day of Atonement acts for him as a suspended reparation sacrifice. In he died before the day of Atonement, the sin is in her. After the day of Atonement it already was atoned for.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat, the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement), there is nothing similar in later generations. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed.

But did not the Day of Atonement already atone? Rebbi Mana said, since it is written, the pilgrimage of Unleavened Bread, the pilgrimage ofWeeks, and the pilgrimage of Tabernacles, it is as if they all atoned one atonement. Rebbi Bun said, since they all atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, it is as if they all atoned one atonement.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday does not have to mention the New Moon. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said, it was stated thus: “The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday in the morning, the House of Shammai say, he prays eight [benedictions], but the House of Hillel say seven. For musaf, the House of Shammai say ten, but the House of Hillel say nine.” Should he not say eleven? Rebbi Yose said, where do they disagree? In a matter which needs a separate benediction. But here even on a weekday he simply includes it. So he should mention it in “Service”. Rebbi Yose asked, since the two he-goats of New Year’s day come because of the New Moon, why do you say that he does not have to mention the New Moon? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal not ask correctly? As it was stated: “The two lambs of Pentecost and the two he-goats of New Year’s Day.” If the first atoned, what does the second atone for? For impurity that happened between them. Is that not Rebbi Simeon’s? And Rebbi Simeon splits atoning. But if both of them were for the New Moon? Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do that, since it is written, in addition to the elevation offering of the month. In addition, from what we have stated, “twelve for the twelve months of the year.” A patrician stood before the Ark and did not mention the New Moon; they praised him. Rav Hoshaia asked: think of it, if they slaughtered both of them simultaneously? What impurity happened between them? Rebbi Bun said, if all of Israel are proper, would they not bring what the Torah prescribed for them?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday does not have to mention the New Moon. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said, it was stated thus: “The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday in the morning, the House of Shammai say, he prays eight [benedictions], but the House of Hillel say seven. For musaf, the House of Shammai say ten, but the House of Hillel say nine.” Should he not say eleven? Rebbi Yose said, where do they disagree? In a matter which needs a separate benediction. But here even on a weekday he simply includes it. So he should mention it in “Service”. Rebbi Yose asked, since the two he-goats of New Year’s day come because of the New Moon, why do you say that he does not have to mention the New Moon? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal not ask correctly? As it was stated: “The two lambs of Pentecost and the two he-goats of New Year’s Day.” If the first atoned, what does the second atone for? For impurity that happened between them. Is that not Rebbi Simeon’s? And Rebbi Simeon splits atoning. But if both of them were for the New Moon? Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do that, since it is written, in addition to the elevation offering of the month. In addition, from what we have stated, “twelve for the twelve months of the year.” A patrician stood before the Ark and did not mention the New Moon; they praised him. Rav Hoshaia asked: think of it, if they slaughtered both of them simultaneously? What impurity happened between them? Rebbi Bun said, if all of Israel are proper, would they not bring what the Torah prescribed for them?

HALAKHAH: “They said to him, did not the teacher use to say,” etc. Rebbi Yose the Southerner said before Rebbi Jonah: Would it not have been necessary to state, if it is so then those of the Days of the New Moon could be brought on the Day of Atonement since one increases holiness but one does not diminish; but those of the Day of Atonement cannot be brought on the Days of the New Moon since one does not diminish holiness. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun explained it by another explanation: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon, but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more? And so “Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten. And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession, inspired by he shall confess on it.

Rebbi Yose asked, “an oath, an oath, an oath, that I shall not eat,” and he ate. What is the rule? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, let us hear from the following: “'An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it;' he is liable once.” Because he mentioned this. Therefore, if he did not mention this, he would be liable for each single one.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted) two, and another (questioned) the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A document produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwriting is invalid, for I am saying that he has practiced writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Abinna in the name of Samuel: It is always invalid unless it be in the creditors’s possession but in the debtor’s handwriting. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, explain it according to everybody about a testamentary gift.

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

Rebbi Immi said, one has to be careful with what the creatures are careful with: It is forbidden to put coins in one’s mouth, a bread under the armpit, a dish under one’s bed, and to stick a knife in an etrog, or a knife into a radish. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, all sweat that exudes from a human is deadly poison except the sweat of the face.

Everybody agrees that substitutes are forbidden. What about substitutes of substitutes? Rebbi Ḥanina said, a disagreement between Rebbi Ismael and the rabbis. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, forbidden. But the rabbis say, permitted. Rebbi Eleazar ben Hoshaia, the reason of the rabbis, you would be banned like itself. Anything which you can keep from it is like itself. What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, like itself, like itself two times, because of nothing should cling to your hand from the ban.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

“Twice she has to check herself,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, corresponding to the two times in which the day changes for creatures.