combines

When you have read and carefully listened to these things, you shall know what God bestows on such as rightly love Him, being made [as ye are] a paradise of delight, presenting in yourselves a tree bearing all kinds of produce and flourishing well, being adorned with various fruits. For in this place the tree of knowledge and the tree of life have been planted; but it is not the tree of knowledge that destroys—it is disobedience that proves destructive. Nor truly are those words without significance which are written, how God from the beginning planted the tree of life in the midst of paradise, revealing through knowledge the way to life, and when those who were first formed did not use this [knowledge] properly, they were, through the fraud of the serpent, stripped naked. For neither can life exist without knowledge, nor is knowledge secure without life. Wherefore both were planted close together. The apostle, perceiving the force [of this conjunction], and blaming that knowledge which, without true doctrine, is admitted to influence life, declares, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.” For he who thinks he knows anything without true knowledge, and such as is witnessed to by life, knows nothing, but is deceived by the serpent, as not loving life. But he who combines knowledge with fear, and seeks after life, plants in hope, looking for fruit. Let your heart be your wisdom; and let your life be true knowledge inwardly received. Bearing this tree and displaying its fruit, thou shalt always gather in those things which are desired by God, which the serpent cannot reach, and to which deception does not approach; nor is Eve then corrupted, but is trusted as a virgin; and salvation is manifested, and the apostles are filled with understanding, and the passover of the Lord advances, and the choirs are gathered together, and are arranged in proper order, and the Word rejoices in teaching the saints,—by whom the Father is glorified: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

For God loveth him who in a den of wickedness combines fasting with chastity, rather than the man who in kings' chambers combines luxury with license.

For God loveth him who in a den of wickedness combines fasting with chastity, rather than the man who in kings' chambers combines luxury with license.

After assuming that some things were foretold which are impossible in themselves, and inconsistent with the character of God, he says: “If these things were predicted of the Most High God, are we bound to believe them of God simply because they were predicted?” And thus he thinks he proves, that although the prophets may have foretold truly such things of the Son of God, yet it is impossible for us to believe in those prophecies declaring that He would do or suffer such things. To this our answer is that the supposition is absurd, for it combines two lines of reasoning which are opposed to each other, and therefore mutually destructive. This may be shown as follows. The one argument is: “If any true prophets of the Most High say that God will become a slave, or suffer sickness, or die, these things will come to God; for it is impossible that the prophets of the great God should utter lies.” The other is: “If even true prophets of the Most High God say that these same things shall come to pass, seeing that these things foretold are by the nature of things impossible, the prophecies are not true, and therefore those things which have been foretold will not happen to God.” When, then, we find two processes of reasoning in both of which the major premiss is the same, leading to two contradictory conclusions, we use the form of argument called “the theorem of two propositions,” to prove that the major premiss is false, which in the case before us is this, “that the prophets have foretold that the great God should become a slave, suffer sickness, or die.” We conclude, then, that the prophets never foretold such things; and the argument is formally expressed as follows: 1st, Of two things, if the first is true, the second is true; 2d, if the first is true, the second is not true, therefore the first is not true. The concrete example which the Stoics give to illustrate this form of argument is the following: 1st, If you know that you are dead, you are dead; 2d, if you know that you are dead, you are not dead. And the conclusion is—“you do not know that you are dead.” These propositions are worked out as follows: If you know that you are dead, that which you know is certain; therefore you are dead. Again, if you know that you are dead, your death is an object of knowledge; but as the dead know nothing, your knowing this proves that you are not dead. Accordingly, by joining the two arguments together, you arrive at the conclusion—“you do not know that you are dead.” Now the hypothesis of Celsus which we have given above is much of the same kind.

To what does this refer? To [an mixture of] grain [occurring] with [different] grain, or pulse with [different] pulse, to grain with pulse, and to pulse with grain. However they stated: Seeds from a garden which are not eaten, they add up [with other seeds to form an amount sufficient to prohibit the sowing of a seah] when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah. Rabbi Shimon says: just as they ruled to be stringent so too they ruled to be lenient flax [mixed in with] produce, combines when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah.

Food which is in separate pieces does not combine together [to receive impurity], according to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. But the Sages say: “It does combines together.” One may exchange [ produce of] second tithe for uncoined metal, according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “One may not so exchange it.” The hands [alone] need to be immersed for the waters of purification according to Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say: “If his hands have become unclean his whole body becomes unclean.”

If a bright spot was of the size of a split bean and a string extended from it, if it was two hairs in breadth, it is subject to the restrictions in respect of white hair and spreading, but not to that in respect of its quick flesh. If there were two bright spots and a streak extended from one to the other, if it was two hairs in breadth, it combines them; but if not, it does not combine them.

HALAKHAH: Not only if the heave lost volume but even if only the profane grain lost but the heave remains as it was, he mills and permits. It was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Huna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave. Rav Huna said, the shells of what is forbidden lift what is permitted. A seah of heave which fell into 100, one does not remove zewanin in it, into less than 100, one does remove the zewanin in it. Similarly, if one log of clear wine fell into 100 log of cloudy wine, one would not remove the latter’s dregs; if one log of cloudy wine fell into 100 log of clear wine, one would remove the former’s dregs.

HALAKHAH: Not only if the heave lost volume but even if only the profane grain lost but the heave remains as it was, he mills and permits. It was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Huna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave. Rav Huna said, the shells of what is forbidden lift what is permitted. A seah of heave which fell into 100, one does not remove zewanin in it, into less than 100, one does remove the zewanin in it. Similarly, if one log of clear wine fell into 100 log of cloudy wine, one would not remove the latter’s dregs; if one log of cloudy wine fell into 100 log of clear wine, one would remove the former’s dregs.

MISHNAH: If somebody cannot make his dough in purity he should make single qabim and not make it in impurity. Rebbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qabim, since just as he names the pure one, he names the impure. But single qabim have no named hallah.If somebody makes his dough single qabim and they are touching one another, they are free from ḥallah unless they are biting. Rebbi Eliezer says, also if one takes them out of the oven and puts them in a basket, the basket combines them together

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if they were biting. There are Tannaїm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven, and there are Tannaїm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one follows Ḥilfai: If they bite in both places they are combined together, if they do not bite in both places they are not combined together. The Mishnah applies, e. g., to Babylonian bread.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if they were biting. There are Tannaїm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven, and there are Tannaїm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one follows Ḥilfai: If they bite in both places they are combined together, if they do not bite in both places they are not combined together. The Mishnah applies, e. g., to Babylonian bread.

MISHNAH: If two women each made a qab and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated, different kinds are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.

MISHNAH: If two women each made a qab and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated, different kinds are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.

“ A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema‘ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and ḥallah? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated.

“ A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema‘ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and ḥallah? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated.

“ A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema‘ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and ḥallah? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

How is this? One says, all sources of taste by one in 100; the other one says, all sources of taste by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the forearm as one in 60 of the ram. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the forearm as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the forearm. But if you remove the bones from the forearm, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.

How is this? One says, all sources of taste by one in 100; the other one says, all sources of taste by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the forearm as one in 60 of the ram. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the forearm as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the forearm. But if you remove the bones from the forearm, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If one harvested half the volume of a dried fig on this Sabbath, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig on another Sabbath, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Is it possible to say Sabbaths divide, Sabbaths combine? Do not trays divide and trays combine? He answered, I do not know the reason for the tray. Is this not a baraita? If he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Azariah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it by intent. He said to him, is this not an argument a fortiori? Since intent neither divides nor combines, error which does not divide a fortiori does not combine.

“Rebbi Simeon says, all are by a quartarius.” The Sages answer Rebbi Simeon: It is impossible to say honey by a quartarius, vinegar by a quartarius. But he answered them, just as you hold that all solid food combines for the volume of a dried date, so we hold that all drinks combine for a quartarius.

If one slaughtered on leavened matter, after what are you going? After eating or after elimination? There did Rebbi Jeremiah say in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. If one slaughtered on them, if they were in the house, and the house did not combine them, he is not liable; or if they were in one vessel and the vessel combines them, he is liable. If he slaughtered on leavening. Since Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav, he is permitted to feed it to his dog, he is not liable; or since Rav said, one flogs for eating it, he is liable.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: It is written, and on the eighth day one shall circumcise. If he transgressed and did not circumcise? He answered him, if you make a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it. A matter which is subject to replacement. It excludes this which is not subject to replacement. Do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. As it was stated: and to the gate of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, but not its replacement. Rebbi Jonah said, Levi ben Sisi explained it before Rebbi: If one said, upon me is the obligation of an elevation offering. There passed three holidays and he brought another one and sacrificed it immediately. I would say, he is freed from the first one. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. Rebbi Yose said, if he said, upon me is the obligation, he transgresses immediately. But we must hold about one who says, this one shall be an elevation offering. There passed two holidays and he brought another one [in its stead but did not sacrifice it immediately] and there passed by another holiday for it. I would say that it combines with its replacement for three holidays. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute.

Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one who heard part of a straight sound from one who was practicing did [not] fulfill his obligation. And where is this said? “If he blew straight for the first set and continued a double length for the second he has only one in his hand.” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Not even one is in his hand. Why? The beginning combines with the end and the end combines with the beginning. The first part has no end and the second part has no beginning.

Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one who heard part of a straight sound from one who was practicing did [not] fulfill his obligation. And where is this said? “If he blew straight for the first set and continued a double length for the second he has only one in his hand.” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Not even one is in his hand. Why? The beginning combines with the end and the end combines with the beginning. The first part has no end and the second part has no beginning.

And where is this said? “If he blew straight for the first set and continued at double length for the second he has only one in his hand.” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Not even one is in his hand. Why? The beginning combines with the end and the end combines with the beginning. The first part has no end and the second part has no beginning.

And where is this said? “If he blew straight for the first set and continued at double length for the second he has only one in his hand.” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Not even one is in his hand. Why? The beginning combines with the end and the end combines with the beginning. The first part has no end and the second part has no beginning.

From where the lifting of hands? So you shall bless the Children of Israel. So far during the morning prayers. At musaf? Aaron lifted his hands for the people. Is not this verse distorted? Should it not read: he descended from making the purification sacrifice, and the elevation sacrifice, and the well-being sacrifice, and after this, Aaron lifted his hands for the people? But it teaches that while descending from the altar he lifted his hands and blessed the people. And he blessed them, standing. I could think, not while standing. The verse says, the Eternal, your God, selected them to serve Him and to bless in His Name. It combines blessing with service. Since service is done standing, also blessing is done standing. And so it says, the Levitic Cohanim rose and blessed the people. The verse speaks of the generation of Ezechias, when they toiled in the Torah. But in other generations, when they were serving foreign worship, what does it say? When you spread your hands my eyes shall disregard you. And he blessed them, any blessing. But we did not hear which it was until the verse came and explained it: The Eternal shall bless you and guard you. The Eternal shall enlighten His presence to you and show you favor. The Eternal shall turn His presence to you and give you peace.

MISHNAH: Implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave. A vessel combines its contents for sancta but not for heave. For sancta the fourth degree is disqualified and the third for heave. For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure, but for sancta he immerses both. One hand makes the other impure for sancta but not for heave.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Jerusalem, built like a city which combines in fellowship, the city which confers fellowship on all of Israel. Then even on all other days of the year? Rebbi Ze`ira said, in the time when the tribes ascended.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not) warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes.” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted. Mixed wine combines with pure wine. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty. Separately, he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not) warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes.” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted. Mixed wine combines with pure wine. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty. Separately, he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once.

How is this? One says, all sources of flavor by one in 100; the other says, all sources of flavor by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the foreleg as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the foreleg as one in 60 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the foreleg. But if you remove the bones from the foreleg, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit; that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.

How is this? One says, all sources of flavor by one in 100; the other says, all sources of flavor by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the foreleg as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the foreleg as one in 60 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the foreleg. But if you remove the bones from the foreleg, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit; that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.

Do Bet Shammai, however, hold that the benediction over the day is of greater importance? Lo, there is a teaching: On entering his house at the conclusion of the Sabbath, he says the benediction over the wine, the light and the spices and after that says the Habdalah ; and should he have only one cup [of wine], he leaves it until after the meal and combines all [the benedictions] afterwards.

That cannot enter thy mind; for it states here in our Mishnah: Bet Shammai say : [The order of benedictions is] light, food, spices and Habdalah ; but Bet Hillel say : Light, spices, food and Habdalah ; and there in the Baraita it states : "Should he have only one cup [of wine], he leaves it until after the meal and combines all [the benedictions] afterwards." Conclude therefore that it emanates from Bet Shammai as interpreted by R. Judah.

R. Abba answered him, [The difference is that] in the former case it combines [with the rest of the Sukkah] and it is permitted to sleep under it; in the latter case it does not combine and it is forbidden to sleep under it.

But is there anything which itself is invalid and yet combines [with another thing to become valid]? R. Isaac b. Elyashiv answered, Yes!

Fluid clay proves it; it combines to make up forty seah, yet he who immerses in it has not undergone a proper immersion.

Rava says, We need to fulfill the requirement of (Deuteronomy 19, 19) "as he plotted to do his brother" and we can not. [He plotted to make his fellow liable a full forty lashes.] If so, than money should also [not be able to be divided]. Money combines, while lashes do not combine.