carries

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted, as we have stated there: “And similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not inverted. Rebbi Jeremiah said, for he is of Rav Jehudah’s opinion, as Rav Jehudah said, that is if it is open to a domain of difficult access. But if it was open to the public domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, how does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam at each side but the Sages say a lath and a beam on one side and he shall make a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? Here about ten [cubits], there about thirteen. The words of the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rav Hoshaia asked my father, how large can the breach of an alley be in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah? And he told him, thirteen [cubits]. And here he says so? The Rabbis of Caesarea say, there what is standing is more than what is breached but here what is breached is more than what is standing.

MISHNAH: In addition, Rebbi Jehudah ben Bava said, if a garden patch or a corral are seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder surrounded by a wall ten hand-breadths high one carries inside on condition that it contain a watchman’s hut or a dwelling or be close to a village

In a corral which covers two bet se’ah one is permitted only to carry a distance of four cubits. If there were two, each one a bet se’ah minus four cubits; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one carries in the second as complement of the first. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not carry in the second as complement of the first. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi La agrees that if there were three. Each of the three a bet se’ah, one agrees that one carries in the second as complement of the first.

In a corral which covers two bet se’ah one is permitted only to carry a distance of four cubits. If there were two, each one a bet se’ah minus four cubits; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one carries in the second as complement of the first. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not carry in the second as complement of the first. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi La agrees that if there were three. Each of the three a bet se’ah, one agrees that one carries in the second as complement of the first.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it only contains a cistern, or an irrigation ditch, or a cave, one carries in it. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if none of these is there one carries in it on condition that it be seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it only contains a cistern, or an irrigation ditch, or a cave, one carries in it. Rebbi Aqiba says, even if none of these is there one carries in it on condition that it be seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if its length exceeds its width even by one cubit one may not carry there. Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width one carries in there.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it only contains a cistern,” etc. It was stated, “Rebbi Eliezer says, if its length exceeds its width even by one cubit one may not carry there.” This disagrees with R. Jonathan. “Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width one carries in there,” this agrees with Rebbi Jonathan. We also have stated, “Kilaim in a quarter. Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width.”

If he acquired a place of Sabbath rest when Gentiles came and surrounded him with a barrier. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the barrier is of no use for him but he may walk 2’000 [cubits] and carry within four. Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, he walks and carries within 2’000. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abuna in the name of Ḥiyya the son of Rav: He walks within 2’000 and carries within 4’000 cubits by throwing. They wanted to say, their disagreement is following Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba; but following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they do not disagree. Even following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they disagree; one who had acquired a place of Sabbath rest is in better shape than one who had not acquired a place of Sabbath rest.

If he acquired a place of Sabbath rest when Gentiles came and surrounded him with a barrier. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the barrier is of no use for him but he may walk 2’000 [cubits] and carry within four. Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, he walks and carries within 2’000. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abuna in the name of Ḥiyya the son of Rav: He walks within 2’000 and carries within 4’000 cubits by throwing. They wanted to say, their disagreement is following Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba; but following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they do not disagree. Even following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they disagree; one who had acquired a place of Sabbath rest is in better shape than one who had not acquired a place of Sabbath rest.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥinena: If the roof of the cave was 4’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits, on top of a wall it is unlimited. If the roof of the cave was 6’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits by the help of nibariot. What about tops of roofs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Aeneas bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Aḥa brings it in the name of Samuel. On top of the roofs one carries even a kor, even two kor. Rebbi Meïr said, one carries up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the word of Rav disagrees with him, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city form a single domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. It is the same for tops of roofs and tops of ships.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥinena: If the roof of the cave was 4’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits, on top of a wall it is unlimited. If the roof of the cave was 6’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits by the help of nibariot. What about tops of roofs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Aeneas bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Aḥa brings it in the name of Samuel. On top of the roofs one carries even a kor, even two kor. Rebbi Meïr said, one carries up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the word of Rav disagrees with him, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city form a single domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. It is the same for tops of roofs and tops of ships.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥinena: If the roof of the cave was 4’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits, on top of a wall it is unlimited. If the roof of the cave was 6’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits by the help of nibariot. What about tops of roofs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Aeneas bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Aḥa brings it in the name of Samuel. On top of the roofs one carries even a kor, even two kor. Rebbi Meïr said, one carries up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the word of Rav disagrees with him, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city form a single domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. It is the same for tops of roofs and tops of ships.

HALAKHAH: “All rooftops of a town form one domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel disagree. Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If they made an eruv. But if they did not have to make an eruv, he explains it if all [houses] were the property of one person. Our Mishnah if all of them were climbing up either on a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder. But if all were climbing up using an Egyptian ladder except for one using a Tyrian, the Tyrian becomes a door and the remaining ones are as if climbing up and climbing down.

May one carry in all of it? Samuel said, he carries in all of it. Rav said, he only carries within four cubits. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” One understands that of the large one four cubits are permitted. But of the small one is forbidden four cubits? Is anything forbidden in four cubits? Do not Rav and Samuel say that one allows him four cubits in front of his door? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in Samuel’s name: If there was a door open to the roof, even then the large one is permitted since it is not completely open, and the small one is forbidden because it is completely open.

May one carry in all of it? Samuel said, he carries in all of it. Rav said, he only carries within four cubits. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” One understands that of the large one four cubits are permitted. But of the small one is forbidden four cubits? Is anything forbidden in four cubits? Do not Rav and Samuel say that one allows him four cubits in front of his door? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in Samuel’s name: If there was a door open to the roof, even then the large one is permitted since it is not completely open, and the small one is forbidden because it is completely open.

Paragraph. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: It follows that Samuel and Rav both disagree with the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “All rooftops of a town form one domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor.

MISHNAH: If somebody builds an upper floor connecting two houses, and similarly open bridges, one carries under them, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said that one may make an eruv for open alleys but the Sages forbid it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rav Huna said, no public domain is roofed. Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, did you not learn from the desert, and was the desert not roofed? Our Mishnah does not say so, but “and similarly open bridges, one carries under them the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” It only says “but the Sages forbid it;” therefore there is no liability of a purification offering.

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

Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male. What does the verse imply? Since it is said, she shall be impure for seven days,and on the eighth day one shall circumcise, I understand that a live birth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth. From where that a stillbirth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth? Rebbi Jehudah said, I am presenting an argument de minore ad majus. Since a live birth, who does not make impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,] into a tent, the stillbirth who makes impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,] into a tent, it is only logical that he should make his mother impure by the impurity of birth. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, since a live birth purifies his mother, also the stillbirth should purify his mother? Since I cannot prove it by an argument de minore ad majus, [therefore} the Torah said a male, to include the stillbirth.

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the roof as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they are not comparable. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed poles are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing it is disqualified.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shade it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

May one witness be believed? It is different here since one cannot control him; should we not worry and say, by the time somebody climbs up and goes out it will shine? The matter can be verified. If one witness says, this male was born on a Sabbath, one circumcises him on his word. It is dark at the end of the Sabbath, one carries (him) on his word. Rebbi Immi was carrying on the result of elapsed time. Rebbi Mattaniah was carrying on the saying of the moon shining. Rebbi Immi was circumcising on the saying of women, the sun was over Hippos.

HALAKHAH: Therefore not an adult? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even an adult is permitted. For what purpose was stated “a small child”? It comes to inform you of the strength of the House of Shammai, how far they are restrictive. Samuel was carried from bed to bed. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa, let us say that he was asthenic. He told him, he was healthier than I and you. It was stated, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi <yose> says, the stones on which we sat on in our youth make war against us in our old age. Rebbi Jonah ordered the colleagues, do not sit on the [outside] stone benches of the assembly of Bar Ulla because they are cold. Rav commanded his students, do not sit on the outside table of the assembly of Issy because it is cold. Rebbi Abba went down to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias, leaning on two Goths. They fell down and he lifted them up, they fell down and he lifted them up. One asked him, what is this? He said to them, I preserved my strength for my old age. Rav Huna did not come to the house of assembly. Rav Qatina asked, was it not stated that one carries the asthenics?

HALAKHAH: It is difficult for the House of Shammai. A large thigh one is permitted to send, a small kid goat one is not permitted to send. Rebbi Yudan said, it only is understood if he carries it. But if he draws it and it walks, what is the difference if he draws it to deliver it or he draws it to let it drink? The Great Rebbi Hoshaia asked Rebbi Jehudah the Prince, did you hear from your father whether one is permitted to move a chicken? Certainly if it was ready for slaughter it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. But are not all chickens ready for slaughter? The question is, maybe even if it is not ready. He told him in a whisper. He asked him, why are you telling me in a whisper? He said to him, just I heard it in a whisper, so I am telling you in a whisper.

HALAKHAH: “He who transports wine jugs,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanin bar Levi said, the Mishnah is about these little flasks of which one carries two or three in a hand. If it is one big one, in front of him it is usual, on the back it is usual. Just as you are saying, he brings it with its hide, similarly he brings it with its jar. Just as you are saying, he brings it limb by limb, similarly he brings it vial by vial.

Rebbi Nathan said, The House of Shammai agrees with the House of Hillel that one brings wood from the field from what was collected, and from a corral what was collected. Where did they disagree? About what is strewn about in a corral, where the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥaninah brings it in the name of Rav: practice follows the person who restricts, [including] what was strewn about in a corral. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there, “[Rebbi Jehudah says], even if it only contains a cistern, or an irrigation ditch, or a cave, one carries in it..” And here he says so? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Jehudah treated it as a house.

HALAKHAH: “Five things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter. Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries burning charcoal into the public domain is liable but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction over the flame but not over glowing charcoal.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Joḥanan from Karṣion in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if {the flame} is jumping off.

MISHNAH: Sancta are more stringent than heave in that one may immerse vessels inside vessels for heave but not for sancta. One considers back, inside, and finger-holes for heave but not for sancta. He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta. The garments of eaters of heave are “support” for sancta. The action for sancta is different from that for heave in that for sancta one unties before immersing whereas for heave one may tie and then immerse.

“He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, because of a happening. It happened to a person that his amphora sprung a leak and he plugged it with his sandal. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he transgressed and carried it, it is pure. This follows what Rebbi Eleazar said: some say, he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is impure. [But some say,] he shall not carry; if he transgressed and carried it is pure. Rebbi Ze`ira said in front of Rebbi Mana does this not imply that they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea? [If you would say, they made his body not like a sufferer from gonorrhea,] then if he transgressed and carried he would be impure. He answered him, explain it if it is connected to sancta.

In case one carries him from place to place, as those who bury in Bet-Shearim. There are Tannaim who state, those here count from when the deceased left; those there count from when the cover plate was laid. There are Tannim who state, these and those count from when the cover plate was laid. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everything goes after the head of the family. Rebbi Jacon bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi: As restriction. What means “as restriction”? If the head of the family was here, those here count from when the deceased left; those there count from when the cover plate was laid. If the head of the family is there, these and those count from when the cover plate was laid. As the following: The sister of Gamaliel the twin died. His brother Hillel came down to him. Rebbi Mana said to him, since you are the head of the family, when you come down to your brother take off your shoes.

MISHNAH: Only the relatives of the deceased tear their clothes, or take them off, or are brought the first meal. One receives the first meal only on upright standing couches. Also one carries the first meal to the mourner’s house neither on a tablet, nor in a bowl, nor in a reed basket; only in sacks. On the holiday one does not recite the blessing of the mourners, but one stands in a row, consoles, and dismisses the public.

There, they say: The prophet Haggai asked two questions; one they answered correctly and one incorrectly. “Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup of third degree, wine, oil, and food of the fourth. Does there exist a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did not answer correctly, since there is a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food. “Ḥaggai said, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead would touch all of these, would they be impure?” If the corner would be impure by the impurity of the dead and touched these. Would it be impure? “The Cohanim answered and said, it would be impure.” They answered correctly. But Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He asked them before they decided about fourth degree [impurity] for sanctified food. Then why did he curse them? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what he said: “What they are sacrificing there is impure”? That is what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite under the altar.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: They were expert in pushings but not expert in slight impurities. “Assume a man carries holy meat,” he asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts impurity by pushing. “The Cohanim answered, and said: No;” they answered him correctly. He asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts slight impurity. “The Cohanim answered and said: It will be impure.” They did not answer correctly, for the impurity of the dead does not impart slight impurity.

Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Phineas, in the name of Rebbi Levi: He asked them about the fifth degree of sanctified food. “Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup third, wine and oil fourth, and the food of the fifth degree. Does there exist fifth degree impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did answer correctly, since there is no fifth degree impurity for sanctified food. Then why did he curse them? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Ornan the Jebusite under the altar.

There are seven kinds of religious people: Religious on the shoulder, religious on credit, religious balancing, religious “what is the deduction,” religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” religious from fear, religious from love. Religious on the shoulder, he carries his deeds on his shoulder. Religious on credit, “give me credit that I can perform commandments.” Religious balancing, he commits one sin and observes one commandment and balances one against the other. Religious “what is the deduction,” what I have that is what I am using to deduct for doing a commandment. Religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” I committed that sin and therefore I shall do this good deed to counteract it. Religious from fear, like Job. Religious from love, like Abraham. No one is beloved as much as the religious from love, like Abraham.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Meïr said, this should not be less than the impurity of a dead reptile! Rebbi Aqiba said, I argued before Rebbi Eliezer: If for a barley-grain sized bone, which does not cause impurity to a human in a tent, a nazir shaves if he touches or carries it, should it not be logical that for a quartarius of blood, which causes impurity to a human in a tent, a nazir should have to shave if he touches or carries it? He said to me, what is that, Aqiba? This is not a place for an argument de minore ad majus! When I came and expounded that before Rebbi Joshua, he said to me, you have a good argument, but that is what they said was practice.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Meïr said, this should not be less than the impurity of a dead reptile! Rebbi Aqiba said, I argued before Rebbi Eliezer: If for a barley-grain sized bone, which does not cause impurity to a human in a tent, a nazir shaves if he touches or carries it, should it not be logical that for a quartarius of blood, which causes impurity to a human in a tent, a nazir should have to shave if he touches or carries it? He said to me, what is that, Aqiba? This is not a place for an argument de minore ad majus! When I came and expounded that before Rebbi Joshua, he said to me, you have a good argument, but that is what they said was practice.

Ben Azai preached: “A dead fly will permanently spoil perfumer’s oil.” Does not one dead fly spoil perfumer’s oil? And this person by one sin spoiled all merits he had. Rebbi Aqiba preached: “ So the abyss opened wide and its mouth swallowed the one without law.” It does not say “without laws”, but “without law”, him who has not a single merit that should help him on the scale of merit. That is, for the Future World. But in this world, even if 999 angels plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? “If there is for him one angel out of a thousand, to tell a man his straightness. He will act with him in grace and say, let him be redeemed, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if you find a saying of Rebbi Eliezer, son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, bend your ear like this funnel and listen, since Rebbi Joḥanan reported that Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: Even if 999 angles plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. Not only this entire angel, but if 999 aspects of that angel plead for conviction and one aspect for acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? It does not say, “if there is for him one angel of a thousand,” but “one out of a thousand”, one aspect out of a thousand aspects of that angel. What is written afterwards? “He will act with him in grace and say, let him be hurt, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” “Let him be hurt,” by suffering. “I found weregilt,” he found means to redeem himself. That is, in this world. But in the Future World, if he has a majority of merits, he inherits paradise; a majority of sins, he inherits hell. If he was 50–50. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “he carries his iniquity.” Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written: “He carries.” What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He grabs one of his demerits, and the merits decide. Rebbi Eleazar said: “You, Eternal, are acting in grace, for You will complete for everybody according to his deeds.” And if he has none, You will give him from Yours. That is Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, for Rebbi Eleazar said, “You, Eternal, are acting in grace,” this teaches that He turns to the aspect of grace.

Ben Azai preached: “A dead fly will permanently spoil perfumer’s oil.” Does not one dead fly spoil perfumer’s oil? And this person by one sin spoiled all merits he had. Rebbi Aqiba preached: “ So the abyss opened wide and its mouth swallowed the one without law.” It does not say “without laws”, but “without law”, him who has not a single merit that should help him on the scale of merit. That is, for the Future World. But in this world, even if 999 angels plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? “If there is for him one angel out of a thousand, to tell a man his straightness. He will act with him in grace and say, let him be redeemed, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if you find a saying of Rebbi Eliezer, son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, bend your ear like this funnel and listen, since Rebbi Joḥanan reported that Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: Even if 999 angles plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. Not only this entire angel, but if 999 aspects of that angel plead for conviction and one aspect for acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? It does not say, “if there is for him one angel of a thousand,” but “one out of a thousand”, one aspect out of a thousand aspects of that angel. What is written afterwards? “He will act with him in grace and say, let him be hurt, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” “Let him be hurt,” by suffering. “I found weregilt,” he found means to redeem himself. That is, in this world. But in the Future World, if he has a majority of merits, he inherits paradise; a majority of sins, he inherits hell. If he was 50–50. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “he carries his iniquity.” Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written: “He carries.” What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He grabs one of his demerits, and the merits decide. Rebbi Eleazar said: “You, Eternal, are acting in grace, for You will complete for everybody according to his deeds.” And if he has none, You will give him from Yours. That is Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, for Rebbi Eleazar said, “You, Eternal, are acting in grace,” this teaches that He turns to the aspect of grace.

MISHNAH: If the carrier of the beam was first and the carrier of the amphora last. If the jar broke on the beam, he is not liable; but if the carrier of the beam stopped walking, he is liable, except that he is not liable if he said to the carrier of the amphora: stop! If the carrier of the amphora was first and the carrier of the beam last. If the jar broke on the beam, he is liable, but if the carrier of the amphora stopped walking, he is not liable, except that he is liable if he said to the carrier of the beam: stop! The same applies if one carries fire and the other flax.

MISHNAH: If somebody deposits coins with another person who binds them together and carries them on his back or gives them to his underage son or daughter, or locks them insufficiently, he is liable because he did not take care the way people take care. But if he took care the way people take care, he is not liable.

“If he was working with his hand but not with his feet.” Rebbi La said, it is written: “If you come into your neighbor’s standing grain,” etc. With his hands, binding. With his feet, he compresses. Even with his shoulder, he carries.

“If he goes to war, he carries it with him for it is said: It shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life. Is there not an inference de minore ad majus? Since for a king of Israel, who was occupied by the needs of Israel, is it said that he shall read in it all the days of his life, a private person so much more. Similarly, it was said to Joshua: You shall meditate about it day and night. Is there not an inference de minore ad majus? Since for Joshua, who is occupied by the needs of Israel, it is said: you shall meditate about it day and night, then certainly a private person.

R. Judah said in the name of Rab, R. Meir's view is law; R. Huna said, it is established usage; R. Johanan said, the people adopted it as a usage. [The opinion of him who says that a view is law, carries with it that we must teach it in the school sessions; if one says that a view is established usage, it means that we do not teach it in the school sessions, but, if asked, decide accordingly; if one says that the people have adopted a view as usage, it means that we do not even decide according to it, but that when someone has already acted in accordance with it, we do not nullify his action.] R. Naḥman said, R. Jose's view is law and, indeed, R. Jose's view has been recognized as law. Why then do the priests nowadays spread their hands during the Minḥah service of public fasts? Inasmuch as they do it close to sunset, it is as if it were done during the Ne'ilah service.

Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav (a mnemonic: KUZA) A Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah gets malkus. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that only after it grants atonement may it be eaten but not beforehand. And a prohibition implied by a positive commandment [carries the force of] a prohibition.