cow

They made a ramp from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, being constructed of arches above arches, each arch placed directly above each foundation [of the arch below] as a protection against a grave in the depths, whereby the priest who was to burn the cow, the cow itself and all who aided in its preparation went forth to the Mount of olives.

If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, "They slaughtered a black cow" nor another red [cow] lest people say, "They slaughtered two." Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said "And he shall bring her out" by herself. The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The priest that was to burn the cow was (deliberately) made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, "It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set."

If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, "They slaughtered a black cow" nor another red [cow] lest people say, "They slaughtered two." Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said "And he shall bring her out" by herself. The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The priest that was to burn the cow was (deliberately) made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, "It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set."

If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, "They slaughtered a black cow" nor another red [cow] lest people say, "They slaughtered two." Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said "And he shall bring her out" by herself. The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The priest that was to burn the cow was (deliberately) made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, "It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set."

If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, "They slaughtered a black cow" nor another red [cow] lest people say, "They slaughtered two." Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said "And he shall bring her out" by herself. The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The priest that was to burn the cow was (deliberately) made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, "It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set."

They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west. The priest stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Judah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand. He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling. When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees.

If a hatat cow was slaughtered not for its own name, or if its blood was received or sprinkled not for its own name, or if this was done for its own name and for some other name, or for some other name and for its name, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules it valid. If [the service] was performed by one whose hands or feet were unwashed, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is valid. If it was performed by one who was not the high priest, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah rules that it is valid. If it was performed by one who was not wearing all the prescribed garments, it is invalid. And in white garments it was to be prepared.

If he burned it without wood, or with any kind of wood, and even if only with straw or stubble, it is valid. If he flayed it and cut up, it is valid. If he slaughtered it with the intention of eating its flesh or drinking its blood, it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer rules: no intention can invalidate the red cow.

All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.

The one who burns the red cow or bulls and he that leads away the scapegoat, defile garments. The red cow and the bulls and the scapegoat do not themselves defile garments. Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.

The one who burns the red cow or bulls and he that leads away the scapegoat, defile garments. The red cow and the bulls and the scapegoat do not themselves defile garments. Behold [the garment] would say [to the person], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me.

Hatat water that became invalid, it may not be mixed into the mud since it might become a snare for others. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized. A cow that drank of the hatat water, its flesh becomes unclean for twenty-four hours. Rabbi Judah says: it becomes neutralized in its bowels.

If he was standing outside an oven and he stretched out his hand to a window and he took a flask and passed it over the oven: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, And the sages say that it is clean. But he who was clean for the hatat waters may stand over an oven while holding in his hand an empty vessel that is clean for the hatat waters or one filled with water that has not yet been mixed [with the ashes of the red cow].

A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaïm formulate “over”, some Tannaïm formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate (Lev. 22:21) “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

“Honoring father and mother.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They asked Rebbi Eliezer, how far does honoring father and mother go? He said to them, you are asking me? Go and ask Dama ben Netinah. Dama ben Netinah was the head of the city council. Once his mother was slapping him in front of the entire council and a slipper fell from her hand, and he handed it back to her so that she should feel no inconvenience. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: He was a Gentile from Ascalon and the head of the city council. He never sat on the stone on which his father used to sit and when his father died, he worshipped the stone. Once the jaspis of Benjamin was lost. They inquired, who would have one of similar quality? They were informed that Dama ben Netinah did. They went to him and and agreed on 100 denars. He went to the upper floor to bring it and found his father sleeping. Some say that the key to the chest was in his father’s fingers; some say his father’s foot was resting on the chest. He descended to them and told them: I could not bring it to you. They thought, maybe he wants more money, and raised the price to two hundred, then to a thousand. When his father woke up from his sleep, he went up and brought it to them. They wanted to give him according to the amount mentioned last, but he refused. He said: Do I sell my father’s honor for money? I will not have any advantage from honoring my father. What reward did the Holy One, praise to Him, give him? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: The following night, his cow gave birth to a red heifer and Israel gave him its weight in gold and took it. Rebbi Sabbatai said (Job 37:23): “Justice and much charity He will not suppress.” The Holy One, praise to Him, will not wait to give the reward for good deeds to the Gentiles.

There, we have stated: “He who turns over cow dung in the public domain and a third party was hurt, is liable for damages.” It was also stated: “It is forbidden because of robbery.” Cahana said, only if he turned it over in order to acquire it. But if he did not turn it over in order to acquire it, about that one does not speak. But as regards damages, there is no difference whether he turned it over in order to acquire it or he did not turn it over in order to acquire it; if a third party was hurt, he is liable for damages. And here, you say so? Rebbi Abun said, there it is written (Ex. 21:34): “The one responsible for the pit shall pay,” the one responsible for the damage shall pay. But here (Deut. 14:22): “You shall give tithes,” you give tithes from your property but not from other people’s property.

“ A cow of a Cohen that was put in an Israel’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the Cohen’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the Cohen, the firstborn would be the Cohen’s.” We have stated accordingly, “put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.”

“ A cow of a Cohen that was put in an Israel’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the Cohen’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the Cohen, the firstborn would be the Cohen’s.” We have stated accordingly, “put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.”

“ A cow of a Cohen that was put in an Israel’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the Cohen’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the Cohen, the firstborn would be the Cohen’s.” We have stated accordingly, “put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Hillel is that people eat from their olives while they are being loaded into the oil vat, as a subterfuge. The House of Hillel follow their own opinion, as we have stated: “One should not sell him a ploughing cow in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel permit this because he may slaughter it.” Do people really slaughter their cattle? As a subterfuge. They agree that one may sell ears of grain for dough even though one knows that the buyer will not prepare the dough in purity.

It was stated: “A man should not plough with his cow at night and rent her out during the day, he should not work for himself at night and rent himself out during the day, he should not starve himself and not torment himself because he reduces the work he will be able to do for his employer.”

“ One does not start a fire in reed thickets because that is [agricultural] work. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits it. Similarly, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, one may plant a useless tree in the Sabbatical year. One teaches a cow to plough only in dunes; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is permitted also in somebody else’s field on condition that one not make parallel furrows.”

MISHNAH: These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical: A plough and all its implements, a yoke, a winnowing fork and an axe. But he may sell a hand sickle, a grain sickle, a carriage and all its implements. This is the principle: Everything that is used only for its work is forbidden; [if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted. The seller may sell five oil amphoras and fifteen wine amphoras because so much one brings from ownerless property. If he brought more than that amount, it is permitted. He may sell to Gentiles in the Land and to Jews outside of the Land. The House of Shammai say, one may not sell to him a ploughing cow during the Sabbatical but the House of Hillel permit it because he might slaughter it. One may sell him produce even during the sowing season and lend him one's measuring device even though one knows that he has workers, and one may exchange coins for him even though one knows that he has workers. In all cases it is forbidden if specified.

MISHNAH: The Sabbatical remits any loan, with or without a document. Store credit is not remitted; if it is transformed into a loan it is remitted. Rebbi Jehudah says, any preceding one is remitted. Wages of a hired hand are not remitted; if they are transformed into a loan they are remitted; Rebbi Yose says, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted; if it does not stop they are not remitted. If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day, if the month was long it is subject to remission, otherwise it is not subject to remission. The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator, and all court documents are not subject to remission. If somebody gives loans on pledge, or deposits his documents with the court, they are not subject to remission.

Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah since he could ask him for payment on New Years’s Day. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. We did state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day,” and Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since he could ask him for payment, he can believe him. And since he could believe him, he could pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan.

Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does this apply even to the remaining actions? If he received [the blood], does he sprinkle [the blood on the walls of the altar]; if he takes a fist full [of the flour offering], can he burn it [on the altar]; if he burned [the red cow], can he sprinkle [water mixed with its ashes, to purify]? Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Since we have stated: “they made it like a purification sacrifice which atones even if obtained by robbery, as long as this fact is unknown to the public;” this means that if he received, he sprinkles; if he takes a fist full, he burns; if he burned, he sprinkles.

The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (Lev. 11:34): “Any drink.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “That can be drunk.” Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Ismael, that for a particular statement after a general one, everything is included? He assumes more than Rebbi Ismael, in that even if there is a second general statement, all is included. Rebbi Paregoros from Caesarea: Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Ismael said: So did Rebbi Eliezer answer the Sages: Since you interpret (Lev. 11:34): “That can be eaten,” to exclude stinking food, so I hold “that can be drunk,” to exclude stinking drinks. They said to him, solid food and drinks are not comparable. If you argue about food, which is pure if stinking from the start, what can you infer for drinks since drinks stinking from the start can become impure? Another approach: If you argue about food, when human food does not need thinking about, what can you infer for drinks since human drink needs thinking about? Because they need thinking about them, should drinks stinking from the start become impure? Because they need thinking about them, drinks stinking from the start should be pure! Another approach. They said to him: If you argue about food, animal feed for humans is not created by thought, what can you infer for drinks since animal drinks for humans need thought? We have stated thus: (Lev. 11:34) “Any drink,” why does the verse have to add “that can be drunk”? This excludes stinking drinks, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. They said to him, no drink is rejected by birds or a cow.

MISHNAH: Heave vetch may be fed to domestic animals, wild animals, and chickens. An Israel who rented a cow from a Cohen feeds it heave vetch. A Cohen who rented a cow from an Israel may not feed it heave vetch even if he is required to feed it. An Israel who received a cow from a Cohen by appraisal may not feed it heave vetch. A Cohen who received a cow from an Israel by appraisal may feed it heave vetch. One lights “oil to burn” in synagogues, houses of study, dark passageways, and near the sick with permission of the Cohen. If the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen is used to visit her father, her father puts up lights with her permission. One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meïr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.

MISHNAH: Heave vetch may be fed to domestic animals, wild animals, and chickens. An Israel who rented a cow from a Cohen feeds it heave vetch. A Cohen who rented a cow from an Israel may not feed it heave vetch even if he is required to feed it. An Israel who received a cow from a Cohen by appraisal may not feed it heave vetch. A Cohen who received a cow from an Israel by appraisal may feed it heave vetch. One lights “oil to burn” in synagogues, houses of study, dark passageways, and near the sick with permission of the Cohen. If the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen is used to visit her father, her father puts up lights with her permission. One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meïr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.

MISHNAH: Heave vetch may be fed to domestic animals, wild animals, and chickens. An Israel who rented a cow from a Cohen feeds it heave vetch. A Cohen who rented a cow from an Israel may not feed it heave vetch even if he is required to feed it. An Israel who received a cow from a Cohen by appraisal may not feed it heave vetch. A Cohen who received a cow from an Israel by appraisal may feed it heave vetch. One lights “oil to burn” in synagogues, houses of study, dark passageways, and near the sick with permission of the Cohen. If the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen is used to visit her father, her father puts up lights with her permission. One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meïr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.

MISHNAH: Heave vetch may be fed to domestic animals, wild animals, and chickens. An Israel who rented a cow from a Cohen feeds it heave vetch. A Cohen who rented a cow from an Israel may not feed it heave vetch even if he is required to feed it. An Israel who received a cow from a Cohen by appraisal may not feed it heave vetch. A Cohen who received a cow from an Israel by appraisal may feed it heave vetch. One lights “oil to burn” in synagogues, houses of study, dark passageways, and near the sick with permission of the Cohen. If the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen is used to visit her father, her father puts up lights with her permission. One puts up lights at a wedding but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, in a house of mourning but not at a wedding. Rebbi Meïr forbids in both cases, Rebbi Simeon permits in both cases.

HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave.

“The laborers are permitted to dip their bread in sauce so they should eat more grapes. The employer is permitted to give them wine to drink so they should eat less grapes. The owner of a cow is permitted to starve her through the night so she should eat much while threshing. The employer is permitted to feed her bundles of straw so she should not eat much while threshing.” Rebbi Abbahu said, give citrus to the animals! Rebbi Ḥanania fed them fig cake. Rebbi Mana fed them carrots.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Ben Bag Bag says (Deut. 14:26): ‘You shall spend the money for anything you desire.’ It was stated: A person may buy a cow because of its hide, a sheep because of its fleece, and wine because of its pitcher.” Rebbi Zeïra said, that is, if the seller was a private person. But if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately. Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah said this: “In a place where wine jugs usually are sold sealed, the pitcher becomes profane.” Rebbi Mana said, from this [you conclude that] just as you say there, if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately, so if the buyer was a professional it is as if he bought this separately and that separately.

There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower.

A Samaritan said, I shall make fun of this elder of the Jews. He went to him and said, I saw in my dream four cedars, four sycamores, a stand, the skin of a cow, and this man sits and steps on it. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, this is no dream! Nevertheless, you should not go away empty-handed. The four cedars are the four sides of his bed, the four sycomores the four legs of his bed, the stand with a skin, the basis for straw, and the rows the fingers. And this man sits and steps on it: this man lies on them, he cannot live and cannot die. And that happened to him.

A person was ploughing. His cow broke away before him and started running. He ran and ran after her until he found himself in Babylonia. They asked him, when did you leave? He answered, today. They asked him, by which [road] did you come? He answered them, by this one, come and see it. He went out, wanted to see it, and did no longer recognize it.

There, we have stated: “If a proselyte became Jewish while he had a cow, if she was slaughtered before he became Jewish he is free, after he had become Jewish he is obligated. In case of doubt he is free because the burden of proof is on the claimant.” There you say in doubt he is free, here you say in doubt he is obligated. Rebbi Abba said, this was challenged before Rebbi Ammi and he said, who would tell me that he takes its value from the tribe! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he takes its value from the tribe. Why can he not put aside there and take its value from the tribe? Rebbi Yose said, ḥallah which is ṭevel and a deadly sin he puts aside and does not take its value from the tribe since the burden of proof is on the claimant.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. Samuel said, if it was tied to it from before the Sabbath. Ḥanin from Gophtia said before Samuel, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi does not act like this. He told him, Rav uses kleisterin, as it was stated: rams go out with kleisterin. Rebbi Aḥa bar Papa objected before Rebbi Zeˋira: But was it not stated: a rope tied to a cow may be tied to the feeding trough, the feeding trough may be tied to a cow. One understands a cow’s may be tied to the feeding trough. May from the feeding trough be tied to a cow? Would he not use the animal’s sides on the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, explain it for knots which are not permanent. Rebbi Yose said, is there a difference for sides of an animal whether the knot is permanent or not permanent? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it if he connects rope to rope.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. Samuel said, if it was tied to it from before the Sabbath. Ḥanin from Gophtia said before Samuel, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi does not act like this. He told him, Rav uses kleisterin, as it was stated: rams go out with kleisterin. Rebbi Aḥa bar Papa objected before Rebbi Zeˋira: But was it not stated: a rope tied to a cow may be tied to the feeding trough, the feeding trough may be tied to a cow. One understands a cow’s may be tied to the feeding trough. May from the feeding trough be tied to a cow? Would he not use the animal’s sides on the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, explain it for knots which are not permanent. Rebbi Yose said, is there a difference for sides of an animal whether the knot is permanent or not permanent? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it if he connects rope to rope.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. Samuel said, if it was tied to it from before the Sabbath. Ḥanin from Gophtia said before Samuel, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi does not act like this. He told him, Rav uses kleisterin, as it was stated: rams go out with kleisterin. Rebbi Aḥa bar Papa objected before Rebbi Zeˋira: But was it not stated: a rope tied to a cow may be tied to the feeding trough, the feeding trough may be tied to a cow. One understands a cow’s may be tied to the feeding trough. May from the feeding trough be tied to a cow? Would he not use the animal’s sides on the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, explain it for knots which are not permanent. Rebbi Yose said, is there a difference for sides of an animal whether the knot is permanent or not permanent? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it if he connects rope to rope.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. Samuel said, if it was tied to it from before the Sabbath. Ḥanin from Gophtia said before Samuel, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi does not act like this. He told him, Rav uses kleisterin, as it was stated: rams go out with kleisterin. Rebbi Aḥa bar Papa objected before Rebbi Zeˋira: But was it not stated: a rope tied to a cow may be tied to the feeding trough, the feeding trough may be tied to a cow. One understands a cow’s may be tied to the feeding trough. May from the feeding trough be tied to a cow? Would he not use the animal’s sides on the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, explain it for knots which are not permanent. Rebbi Yose said, is there a difference for sides of an animal whether the knot is permanent or not permanent? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it if he connects rope to rope.

MISHNAH: A donkey may not go out with its saddle cloth if it is not bound to it, nor with a bell even if it is plugged, nor with a ladder on its neck, nor with a strip on its foot. Chicken may no go out with threads or strips on their feet. Rams may not go out with a carriage under their tails nor female sheep with yaḥnun, nor a calf with gimun, nor a cow with hedgehog hide, nor with a strip between her horns. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s cow went out with a strip between her horns against the will of the Sages.

MISHNAH: A donkey may not go out with its saddle cloth if it is not bound to it, nor with a bell even if it is plugged, nor with a ladder on its neck, nor with a strip on its foot. Chicken may no go out with threads or strips on their feet. Rams may not go out with a carriage under their tails nor female sheep with yaḥnun, nor a calf with gimun, nor a cow with hedgehog hide, nor with a strip between her horns. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s cow went out with a strip between her horns against the will of the Sages.

“Nor a cow with hedgehog hide,” because one puts hedgehog hide between her udder so she cannot nurse her young.

“Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s cow went out with a strip between her horns against the will of the Sages.” Rebbi Abba: Both (and Rebbi) [Rav and] Samuel are saying, the words of the Sages are that even pulling her with them is forbidden. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: If its horns were drilling it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Abba and he said, we only stated: “the female camel with a nose ring.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: A badly behaved ox goes out with his bridle; our teachers in the Diaspora do this. Rebbi Illa, Rav Jehudah in the name of [Rebbi] Simeon ben [Rebbi] Ḥiyya: A dog goes out with his muzzle. If to (expect) [punish] him it is forbidden, if so he should not eat his bridle it is permitted.

MISHNAH: One who brings out straw filling the mouth of a cow, wood shavings filling the mouth of a camel, grain filling the mouth of a sheep, grasses filling the mouth of a goat. Moist garlic leaves and onion leaves the volume of a dried fig, if dry filling the mouth of a goat; they are not combined since their measures are not identical. One who brings out foodstuffs in the volume of a dried fig; they are combined since their measures are the same except for their shells, and their pits, and their stalks, and their grit, and their bran. Rebbi Jehudah says except for pods of lentils which are cooked with them.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

“Bast to make a hanger for a small or large sieve.” This you are saying about the inner part. But for the outer parts to make two loops for a small or large sieve. It was stated: “Palm fiber to make a handle for an Egyptian basket.” This you are saying for soft ones, but for hard ones to make a border. If one took out a willow container he is liable. Palm leaves two. Vine shoots, for planting two, as animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood. One who brings out two hairs from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail is liable because one uses them to make snares. Bristles from pig, there are Tannaim who state, two, and there are Tannaim who state, one. He who says two, of soft ones, but he who says one, of hard ones. Kernels, for planting, two, as animal feed a pig’s mouthful. What is its mouthful? One. Others say, the number five. If one took out calamint, hyssop, or thyme, if as human food, in the volume of a dried fig, if an animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood, if for sprinkling according to the measure of sprinkling.

HALAKHAH: 7. “A potsherd (of any size) to put between one half brick,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may use it to sanctify; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Eleazar asked, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why may one not use it to sanctify? Because it is impervious to impurity . But are not vessels made of cow dung, stone vessels, earthen vessels impervious to impurity and one may use them to sanctify! But because it does not contain a quartarius. But does not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree that one may sanctify using an arbitrarily small complete clay vessel? It is that the only reason is that it does not have the appellation “vessel”. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan. It is not enough to disqualify the body but one may use it to sanctify? But this follows Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said, also the most minute amount of clay vessel.” Did not Rebbi Yose say this only for a complete one, and do we not deal here with a broken one? What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated supports Rebbi Joḥanan; what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

HALAKHAH: “One cleans up after an animal to be fattened,” etc. Because what the animal to be fattened leaves over, the grazing one eats. The following is in question: May one take from before one animal and give it before another animal? Is that not the Mishnah, “one may take from before one animal and put it before another on the Sabbath”? The Mishnah is about the same kind; what he asks is about another kind. It was stated, a person may take from before a donkey and put before a cow; from before an animal whose mouth is repelling to an animal whose mouth is nice.

MISHNAH: It is permitted to make them close to the well on condition that the head and most of the cow be inside when she drinks. It is permitted to put them arbitrarily far away on condition to add planks.

HALAKHAH: “It is permitted to make them close to the well,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: This is its measure. With this measure even though the camel is entirely outside it is permitted. Less than this measure even if the kid goat is entirely inside it is forbidden. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, enough for a camel and its camel driver. Does he disagree? In every case where the cow stretches its neck, the camel bends its neck. Why do you want this? Could not the cow stand in the public domain and eat in a private domain? Rebbi Yose said, there it is about one who [provides] for it, but here if it eats by itself.

HALAKHAH: “It is permitted to make them close to the well,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: This is its measure. With this measure even though the camel is entirely outside it is permitted. Less than this measure even if the kid goat is entirely inside it is forbidden. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, enough for a camel and its camel driver. Does he disagree? In every case where the cow stretches its neck, the camel bends its neck. Why do you want this? Could not the cow stand in the public domain and eat in a private domain? Rebbi Yose said, there it is about one who [provides] for it, but here if it eats by itself.

HALAKHAH: According to Rebbi Jehudah, is the well included in the measure of two [bet] se’ah? Let us hear from the following: If a well is two bet se’ah one may not go farther away than for the head and most of the body of a cow. This implies that the well is included in the measure of two [bet] se’ah.

There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent, in case it died he is not liable.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower. Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Bar Qappara understood it from the following. As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command, this is burning of the Cow. It is said here, did the Eternal command, and it is said there, this is the low of the Torah which the Eternal commanded, saying.” To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? As Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement valid only through the High Priest, the other also is atonement through the High Priest.

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why is the death of Aaron’s sons mentioned in the matter when they died during initiation? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Aaron’s sons died on the First of Nisan; why does He mention their death at the Day of Atonement? To teach you that just as the Day of Atonement atones for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Ba bar Binah said, why did the verse append the death of Miriam to the Chapter of the Cow? To teach you that just as the ashes of the Cow atone for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, why did the verse append the death of Aaron to the breaking of the Tablets? To teach you that the death of the Just is as hard for the Holy One, praise to Him, as the breaking of the Tablets.

In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why is the death of Aaron’s sons mentioned in the matter when they died during initiation? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Aaron’s sons died on the First of Nisan; why does He mention their death at the Day of Atonement? To teach you that just as the Day of Atonement atones for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Ba bar Binah said, why did the verse append the death of Miriam to the Chapter of the Cow? To teach you that just as the ashes of the Cow atone for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, why did the verse append the death of Aaron to the breaking of the Tablets? To teach you that the death of the Just is as hard for the Holy One, praise to Him, as the breaking of the Tablets.

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is disqualified.”

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is disqualified.”

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is disqualified.”

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is disqualified.”

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is disqualified.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are three strips. The one for the he-goat for a tetradrachma, for the sufferer from skin disease for a sheqel, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; some express it in the formulation ten zin.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are three strips. The one for the he-goat for a tetradrachma, for the sufferer from skin disease for a sheqel, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; some express it in the formulation ten zin.

“One repairs the roads, and the streets, and water pools, and one looks after all public needs.” “ The following are the public needs: One judges civil suits, and capital crimes, and cases of flogging, and one redeems valuations, and bans, and dedications, one lets the suspected adulteress drink, and burns the Cow, and one breaks the neck of the calf whose neck was to be broken, and one pierces the ear of a Hebrew slave, and one purifies the sufferer from skin disease, and removes the shoe from the block but one may not return it.”

MISHNAH: The Cow, the he-goat which is sent away, and the shiny strip come from the money disbursed from the lodge. The ramp for the Cow, the ramp for the he-goat which is sent away, the strip bound on its horns, the water canal, the city wall and its towers, and all needs of the city, come from the leftovers in the lodge. Abba Shaul says, the High Priests build the ramp for the Cow at their own expense. What did one do with the leftover in the lodge? One buys with it wine, oil, and fine flour, and the gain is the Temple’s, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, one gains neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor. What did they use the leftover of the disbursement for? Gold sheets coating for the Holiest of Holies. Rebbi Ismael said, the leftover of produce is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Rebbi Aqiba says, the leftover of the disbursement is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the libations is for Service vessels. Rebbi Ḥanania the executive officer of the Cohanim says, the leftover of the libations is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Neither of them did agree about produce.

MISHNAH: The Cow, the he-goat which is sent away, and the shiny strip come from the money disbursed from the lodge. The ramp for the Cow, the ramp for the he-goat which is sent away, the strip bound on its horns, the water canal, the city wall and its towers, and all needs of the city, come from the leftovers in the lodge. Abba Shaul says, the High Priests build the ramp for the Cow at their own expense. What did one do with the leftover in the lodge? One buys with it wine, oil, and fine flour, and the gain is the Temple’s, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, one gains neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor. What did they use the leftover of the disbursement for? Gold sheets coating for the Holiest of Holies. Rebbi Ismael said, the leftover of produce is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Rebbi Aqiba says, the leftover of the disbursement is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the libations is for Service vessels. Rebbi Ḥanania the executive officer of the Cohanim says, the leftover of the libations is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Neither of them did agree about produce.

MISHNAH: The Cow, the he-goat which is sent away, and the shiny strip come from the money disbursed from the lodge. The ramp for the Cow, the ramp for the he-goat which is sent away, the strip bound on its horns, the water canal, the city wall and its towers, and all needs of the city, come from the leftovers in the lodge. Abba Shaul says, the High Priests build the ramp for the Cow at their own expense. What did one do with the leftover in the lodge? One buys with it wine, oil, and fine flour, and the gain is the Temple’s, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, one gains neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor. What did they use the leftover of the disbursement for? Gold sheets coating for the Holiest of Holies. Rebbi Ismael said, the leftover of produce is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Rebbi Aqiba says, the leftover of the disbursement is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the libations is for Service vessels. Rebbi Ḥanania the executive officer of the Cohanim says, the leftover of the libations is for adornment of the altar, the leftover of the disbursement is for Service vessels. Neither of them did agree about produce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are three strips. The one for the he-goat for a tetradrachma, for the sufferer from skin disease for a sheqel, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas. Rebbi Onias from Berat-Hauran in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; but some express it in the formulation ten (zin) [zuz].

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are three strips. The one for the he-goat for a tetradrachma, for the sufferer from skin disease for a sheqel, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas. Rebbi Onias from Berat-Hauran in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; but some express it in the formulation ten (zin) [zuz].

Rebbi Ḥanina said, there was much arrogance among the sons of the High Priests, for more than talents of gold [did they spend on it.] If the ramp for the Cow was still standing, no one was leading out his cow on the other’s ramp, but he tore it down and was building it anew. Rebbi Ulla objected before Rebbi Mana: Was it not stated that Simeon the Just made two Cows; on the ramp on which he took out one he did not take out the other. Could you say that Simeon the Just was arrogant? What about it? Because they gave eminence to the Cow, ornaments they made for the Cow. It was stated: Ledges and walls were on both sides so that the priests could not look down and become impure.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, there was much arrogance among the sons of the High Priests, for more than talents of gold [did they spend on it.] If the ramp for the Cow was still standing, no one was leading out his cow on the other’s ramp, but he tore it down and was building it anew. Rebbi Ulla objected before Rebbi Mana: Was it not stated that Simeon the Just made two Cows; on the ramp on which he took out one he did not take out the other. Could you say that Simeon the Just was arrogant? What about it? Because they gave eminence to the Cow, ornaments they made for the Cow. It was stated: Ledges and walls were on both sides so that the priests could not look down and become impure.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, there was much arrogance among the sons of the High Priests, for more than talents of gold [did they spend on it.] If the ramp for the Cow was still standing, no one was leading out his cow on the other’s ramp, but he tore it down and was building it anew. Rebbi Ulla objected before Rebbi Mana: Was it not stated that Simeon the Just made two Cows; on the ramp on which he took out one he did not take out the other. Could you say that Simeon the Just was arrogant? What about it? Because they gave eminence to the Cow, ornaments they made for the Cow. It was stated: Ledges and walls were on both sides so that the priests could not look down and become impure.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, there was much arrogance among the sons of the High Priests, for more than talents of gold [did they spend on it.] If the ramp for the Cow was still standing, no one was leading out his cow on the other’s ramp, but he tore it down and was building it anew. Rebbi Ulla objected before Rebbi Mana: Was it not stated that Simeon the Just made two Cows; on the ramp on which he took out one he did not take out the other. Could you say that Simeon the Just was arrogant? What about it? Because they gave eminence to the Cow, ornaments they made for the Cow. It was stated: Ledges and walls were on both sides so that the priests could not look down and become impure.

MISHNAH: If it was found in the countryside, limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted. Rebbi Simeon said, the Court stipulated seven things, and this was one of them: If a Gentile sent his elevation offering from overseas also sent its libations, they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. Similarly, if a proselyte died and the estate includes well-being offerings; if he also has flour offerings they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. It is a stipulation of the Court that the flour offering of a deceased High Priest be brought from public money; Rebbi Jehudah says, from his heirs, and it was brought whole. About salt and wood that the Cohanim may use them, and about the Cow that one does not commit larceny with its ashes. And about disqualified nests that they be charged to the public; Rebbi Yose says, he who provides the nests provides the disqualified ones.

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is damaged.”

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is damaged.”

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is damaged.”

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is damaged.”

Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow, on Tabernacles, and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles were one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement were one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple. “On that day, the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway, or base is damaged.”

They preferred an old man to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish for intercalation but had to remove him by the other door. He said, this be their reward. He did not hear what Rebbi Crispus said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened that the year was intercalated by three cow hands. One said, in Adar, early and late grain sprout together. Another one said, if in Adar the East wind blows, open your jaws and go towards it. Another one said, in Adar the ox will die naked and try to strip off his hide under the fig tree. And we see that this year nothing of these applies. They intercalated the year on their word. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, because the Court agreed with them. Did not Rebbi Ze`ira say, but they all have to agree to the same reason? But since they all agree with one another it was that they all agreed as to the reason.

MISHNAH: Three things did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah permit but the Sages forbid. His cow was going out with a strip between her horns, and one grooms an animal with combs with small teeth on a holiday, and one grinds peppers in their proper mill. Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not groom an animal on the holiday with a comb with small teeth because it produces bruises, but one may groom with a comb with large teeth. But the Sages are saying one uses a comb with small teeth but not with large teeth.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he handed it over on the holiday; but if he handed it over to him on holiday eve it is like the shepherd’s feet. If there is there one shepherd, but if there is not one shepherd there, like the feet of the cow hand. And it was stated thus: “If he hands his animal to the cow hand even though he did not inform the cow hand it is like the cow hand’s feet.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he handed it over on the holiday; but if he handed it over to him on holiday eve it is like the shepherd’s feet. If there is there one shepherd, but if there is not one shepherd there, like the feet of the cow hand. And it was stated thus: “If he hands his animal to the cow hand even though he did not inform the cow hand it is like the cow hand’s feet.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he handed it over on the holiday; but if he handed it over to him on holiday eve it is like the shepherd’s feet. If there is there one shepherd, but if there is not one shepherd there, like the feet of the cow hand. And it was stated thus: “If he hands his animal to the cow hand even though he did not inform the cow hand it is like the cow hand’s feet.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he handed it over on the holiday; but if he handed it over to him on holiday eve it is like the shepherd’s feet. If there is there one shepherd, but if there is not one shepherd there, like the feet of the cow hand. And it was stated thus: “If he hands his animal to the cow hand even though he did not inform the cow hand it is like the cow hand’s feet.”