cuts

It’s like some who’ve left their home, having jars that weren’t any good in places. They broke them, but the master of the house doesn’t suffer any loss. Instead he rejoices, because in place of the bad jars are ones that are full and complete. For this is the judgment that’s come from above; it’s judged everyone. It’s a drawn, two-edged sword which cuts both ways. The Word, which is in the hearts of those who speak it, appeared. It isn’t just a sound, but it was incarnated (embodied).

a man cuts wood in the dark and does not see, like a thief who breaks into a house and escapes.

But as for his other benefits, it is impossible to reckon them up, those which he bestowed on cities, both in Syria and in Greece, and in all the places he came to in his voyages; for he seems to have conferred, and that after a most plentiful manner, what would minister to many necessities, and the building of public works, and gave them the money that was necessary to such works as wanted it, to support them upon the failure of their other revenues: but what was the greatest and most illustrious of all his works, he erected Apollo's temple at Rhodes, at his own expenses, and gave them a great number of talents of silver for the repair of their fleet. He also built the greatest part of the public edifices for the inhabitants of Nicopolis, at Actium; and for the Antiochinus, the inhabitants of the principal city of Syria, where a broad street cuts through the place lengthways, he built cloisters along it on both sides, and laid the open road with polished stone, and was of very great advantage to the inhabitants. And as to the olympic games, which were in a very low condition, by reason of the failure of their revenues, he recovered their reputation, and appointed revenues for their maintenance, and made that solemn meeting more venerable, as to the sacrifices and other ornaments; and by reason of this vast liberality, he was generally declared in their inscriptions to be one of the perpetual managers of those games.

Now when Herod was come to Jerusalem, he gathered the people together, and presented to them his three sons, and gave them an apologetic account of his absence, and thanked God greatly, and thanked Caesar greatly also, for settling his house when it was under disturbances, and had procured concord among his sons, which was of greater consequence than the kingdom itself,--"and which I will render still more firm; for Caesar hath put into my power to dispose of the government, and to appoint my successor. Accordingly, in way of requital for his kindness, and in order to provide for mine own advantage, I do declare that these three sons of mine shall be kings. And, in the first place, I pray for the approbation of God to what I am about; and, in the next place, I desire your approbation also. The age of one of them, and the nobility of the other two, shall procure them the succession. Nay, indeed, my kingdom is so large that it may be sufficient for more kings. Now do you keep those in their places whom Caesar hath joined, and their father hath appointed; and do not you pay undue or unequal respects to them, but to every one according to the prerogative of their births; for he that pays such respects unduly, will thereby not make him that is honored beyond what his age requires so joyful, as he will make him that is dishonored sorrowful. As for the kindred and friends that are to converse with them, I will appoint them to each of them, and will so constitute them, that they may be securities for their concord; as well knowing that the ill tempers of those with whom they converse will produce quarrels and contentions among them; but that if these with whom they converse be of good tempers, they will preserve their natural affections for one another. But still I desire that not these only, but all the captains of my army, have for the present their hopes placed on me alone; for I do not give away my kingdom to these my sons, but give them royal honors only; whereby it will come to pass that they will enjoy the sweet parts of government as rulers themselves, but that the burden of administration will rest upon myself whether I will or not. And let every one consider what age I am of, how I have conducted my life, and what piety I have exercised; for my age is not so great that men may soon expect the end of my life; nor have I indulged such a luxurious way of living as cuts men off when they are young; and we have been so religious towards God, that we [have reason to hope we] may arrive at a very great age. But for such as cultivate a friendship with my sons, so as to aim at my destruction, they shall be punished by me on their account. I am not one who envy my own children, and therefore forbid men to pay them great respect; but I know that such [extravagant] respects are the way to make them insolent. And if every one that comes near them does but revolve this in his mind, that if he prove a good man, he shall receive a reward from me, but that if he prove seditious, his ill-intended complaisance shall get him nothing from him to whom it is shown, I suppose they will all be of my side, that is, of my sons' side; for it will be for their advantage that I reign, and that I be at concord with them. But do you, O my good children, reflect upon the holiness of nature itself, by whose means natural affection is preserved, even among wild beasts; in the next place, reflect upon Caesar, who hath made this reconciliation among us; and in the third place, reflect upon me, who entreat you to do what I have power to command you,--continue brethren. I give you royal garments, and royal honors; and I pray to God to preserve what I have determined, in case you be at concord one with another." When the king had thus spoken, and had saluted every one of his sons after an obliging manner, he dismissed the multitude; some of which gave their assent to what he had said, and wished it might take effect accordingly; but for those who wished for a change of affairs, they pretended they did not so much as hear what he said.

Now Lucilius Bassus was sent as legate into Judea, and there he received the army from Cerealis Vitellianus, and took that citadel which was in Herodium, together with the garrison that was in it; after which he got together all the soldiery that was there, [which was a large body, but dispersed into several parties,] with the tenth legion, and resolved to make war upon Machaerus; for it was highly necessary that this citadel should be demolished, lest it might be a means of drawing away many into a rebellion, by reason of its strength; for the nature of the place was very capable of affording the surest hopes of safety to those that possessed it, as well as delay and fear to those that should attack it; for what was walled in was itself a very rocky hill, elevated to a very great height; which circumstance alone made it very hard to be subdued. It was also so contrived by nature, that it could not be easily ascended; for it is, as it were, ditched about with such valleys on all sides, and to such a depth, that the eye cannot reach their bottoms, and such as are not easily to be passed over, and even such as it is impossible to fill up with earth. For that valley which cuts it on the west extends to threescore furlongs, and did not end till it came to the lake Asphaltites; on the same side it was also that Machaerus had the tallest top of its hill elevated above the rest. But then for the valleys that lay on the north and south sides, although they be not so large as that already described, yet it is in like manner an impracticable thing to think of getting over them; and for the valley that lies on the east side, its depth is found to be no less than a hundred cubits. It extends as far as a mountain that lies over against Machaerus, with which it is bounded.

Let us now see how we are to understand the expression “invisible image,” that we may in this way perceive how God is rightly called the Father of His Son; and let us, in the first place, draw our conclusions from what are customarily called images among men. That is sometimes called an image which is painted or sculptured on some material substance, such as wood or stone; and sometimes a child is called the image of his parent, when the features of the child in no respect belie their resemblance to the father. I think, therefore, that that man who was formed after the image and likeness of God may be fittingly compared to the first illustration. Respecting him, however, we shall see more precisely, God willing, when we come to expound the passage in Genesis. But the image of the Son of God, of whom we are now speaking, may be compared to the second of the above examples, even in respect of this, that He is the invisible image of the invisible God, in the same manner as we say, according to the sacred history, that the image of Adam is his son Seth. The words are, “And Adam begat Seth in his own likeness, and after his own image.” Now this image contains the unity of nature and substance belonging to Father and Son. For if the Son do, in like manner, all those things which the Father doth, then, in virtue of the Son doing all things like the Father, is the image of the Father formed in the Son, who is born of Him, like an act of His will proceeding from the mind. And I am therefore of opinion that the will of the Father ought alone to be sufficient for the existence of that which He wishes to exist. For in the exercise of His will He employs no other way than that which is made known by the counsel of His will. And thus also the existence of the Son is generated by Him. For this point must above all others be maintained by those who allow nothing to be unbegotten, i.e. unborn, save God the Father only. And we must be careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to themselves certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into parts, and who divide God the Father as far as they can, since even to entertain the remotest suspicion of such a thing regarding an incorporeal being is not only the height of impiety, but a mark of the greatest folly, it being most remote from any intelligent conception that there should be any physical division of any incorporeal nature. Rather, therefore, as an act of the will proceeds from the understanding, and neither cuts off any part nor is separated or divided from it, so after some such fashion is the Father to be supposed as having begotten the Son, His own image; namely, so that, as He is Himself invisible by nature, He also begat an image that was invisible. For the Son is the Word, and therefore we are not to understand that anything in Him is cognisable by the senses. He is wisdom, and in wisdom there can be no suspicion of anything corporeal. He is the true light, which enlightens every man that cometh into this world; but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun. Our Saviour, therefore, is the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as compared with the Father Himself He is the truth: and as compared with us, to whom He reveals the Father, He is the image by which we come to the knowledge of the Father, whom no one knows save the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him. And the method of revealing Him is through the understanding. For He by whom the Son Himself is understood, understands, as a consequence, the Father also, according to His own words: “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also.”

After this, wishing to prove that the occurrences which befell Him were painful and distressing, and that it was impossible for Him, had He wished, to render them otherwise, he proceeds: “Why does he mourn, and lament, and pray to escape the fear of death, expressing himself in terms like these: ‘O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me?’” Now in these words observe the malignity of Celsus, how not accepting the love of truth which actuates the writers of the Gospels (who might have passed over in silence those points which, as Celsus thinks, are censurable, but who did not omit them for many reasons, which any one, in expounding the Gospel, can give in their proper place), he brings an accusation against the Gospel statement, grossly exaggerating the facts, and quoting what is not written in the Gospels, seeing it is nowhere found that Jesus lamented. And he changes the words in the expression, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” and does not give what follows immediately after, which manifests at once the ready obedience of Jesus to His Father, and His greatness of mind, and which runs thus: “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” Nay, even the cheerful obedience of Jesus to the will of His Father in those things which He was condemned to suffer, exhibited in the declaration, “If this cup cannot pass from me except I drink it, Thy will be done,” he pretends not to have observed, acting here like those wicked individuals who listen to the Holy Scriptures in a malignant spirit, and “who talk wickedness with lofty head.” For they appear to have heard the declaration, “I kill,” and they often make it to us a subject of reproach; but the words, “I will make alive,” they do not remember,—the whole sentence showing that those who live amid public wickedness, and who work wickedly, are put to death by God, and that a better life is infused into them instead, even one which God will give to those who have died to sin. And so also these men have heard the words, “I will smite;” but they do not see these, “and I will heal,” which are like the words of a physician, who cuts bodies asunder, and inflicts severe wounds, in order to extract from them substances that are injurious and prejudicial to health, and who does not terminate his work with pains and lacerations, but by his treatment restores the body to that state of soundness which he has in view. Moreover, they have not heard the whole of the announcement, “For He maketh sore, and again bindeth up;” but only this part, “He maketh sore.” So in like manner acts this Jew of Celsus, who quotes the words, “O Father, would that this cup might pass from me;” but who does not add what follows, and which exhibits the firmness of Jesus, and His preparedness for suffering. But these matters, which afford great room for explanation from the wisdom of God, and which may reasonably be pondered over by those whom Paul calls “perfect” when he said, “We speak wisdom among them who are perfect,” we pass by for the present, and shall speak for a little of those matters which are useful for our present purpose.

But if punishment is to be weighed out according to sin, not even so would punishment be endless. For as regards that which is said in the Gospel, ‘These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal this word ‘ eternal ’ (IFdlam) is not definite: for if it be not so, how did Peter say to our Lord, ‘Thou shalt never wash my feet,’ and yet He washed him? And of Babylon He said, ‘ No man shall dwell therein for ever and ever,’ and behold many generations dwell therein. In the ‘ Book of Memorials ’ he says: ‘ I hold what the most celebrated of the holy Fathers say, that He cuts off a little from much. The penalty of Gehenna is a man’s mind; for the punishment there is of two kinds, that of the body and that of the mind. That of the body is perhaps in proportion to the degree of sin, and He lessens and diminishes its duration; but that of the mind is for ever, and the judgment is for ever.’ But in the New Testament le-dlam is not without end. To Him be glory and dominion and praise and exaltation and honour for ever and ever. Amen and Amen.

One who thins out his olive-trees [in the seventh year]: Bet Shammai says: he cuts them down to the ground. Bet Hillel says: he may completely uproot them. They agree that if one levels his field, he can only cut them down to the ground. What is considered “thinning out”? One or two plants. And what is considered “leveling”? Three plants next to each other. This applies to his own property only, but from the property of another, even he that levels may uproot.

One who cuts down branches of an olive tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One who cuts down branches of a sycamore tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One may not cut down from a virgin sycamore in the seventh year, for this would constitute actual labor. Rabbi Judah says: in its usual manner, it is forbidden. Rather he either cuts it ten handbreadths above [the soil], or he cuts it down to ground level.

One who cuts down branches of an olive tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One who cuts down branches of a sycamore tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One may not cut down from a virgin sycamore in the seventh year, for this would constitute actual labor. Rabbi Judah says: in its usual manner, it is forbidden. Rather he either cuts it ten handbreadths above [the soil], or he cuts it down to ground level.

One who cuts down branches of an olive tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One who cuts down branches of a sycamore tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One may not cut down from a virgin sycamore in the seventh year, for this would constitute actual labor. Rabbi Judah says: in its usual manner, it is forbidden. Rather he either cuts it ten handbreadths above [the soil], or he cuts it down to ground level.

One who cuts down branches of an olive tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One who cuts down branches of a sycamore tree, he may not cover up [the stump] with earth, but he may cover it with stones or straw. One may not cut down from a virgin sycamore in the seventh year, for this would constitute actual labor. Rabbi Judah says: in its usual manner, it is forbidden. Rather he either cuts it ten handbreadths above [the soil], or he cuts it down to ground level.

One who trims grape vines, or cuts reeds: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: he must leave [uncut at least] one handbreadth. But Rabbi Akiba says: he may cut them in the usual manner, with the axe, sickle or saw, or with whatever he pleases. A tree that had split may be tied up in the seventh year, not that it may heal, but only that it should not widen.

He who plows any amount, or who weeds, or who prunes [trees], or who cuts off young shoots, no matter the amount, is liable. He who gathers wood: if in order to effect an improvement, [he is liable] for any amount; if for lighting a fire, as much as is required for boiling a light egg. He who collects grasses: if to effect an improvement, [he is liable] for any amount; if for an animal, as much as fits in a kid’s mouth.

Rabbi Judah says: if a public road cuts through them it should be diverted to one side; But the sages say: this is not necessary. Both for a public cistern, a public well as well as a private well, they may make [an enclosure] of posts, but for a private cistern, they must make a partition ten handbreadths high, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Judah ben Baba says: they make [an enclosure] of posts for a public well only while for the others they must make a belt ten handbreadths high.

If part of a limb went outside, he cuts [the flesh] as far as the bone and pares it until he reaches the joint and cuts it away. But in the case of [other] sanctified meat he cuts it off with a large knife, because they are not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. From the door-stop and within it is as the inside; From the door-stop and without is as outside. The windows and the thickness of the wall are as the inside.

If part of a limb went outside, he cuts [the flesh] as far as the bone and pares it until he reaches the joint and cuts it away. But in the case of [other] sanctified meat he cuts it off with a large knife, because they are not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. From the door-stop and within it is as the inside; From the door-stop and without is as outside. The windows and the thickness of the wall are as the inside.

If part of a limb went outside, he cuts [the flesh] as far as the bone and pares it until he reaches the joint and cuts it away. But in the case of [other] sanctified meat he cuts it off with a large knife, because they are not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. From the door-stop and within it is as the inside; From the door-stop and without is as outside. The windows and the thickness of the wall are as the inside.

If a man boxed the ear of his fellow, he must pay him a sela (four. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: “A maneh (one hundred.” If he slapped him he must pay 200 zuz. If with the back of his hand, he must pay him 400 zuz. If he tore at his ear, plucked out his hair, spat at him and his spit touched him, or pulled his cloak from off him, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, he must pay 400 zuz. This is the general rule: all is in accordance with the person’s honor. Rabbi Akiva said: “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”. And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?” He answered, “You have said nothing.” If a man injures himself, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But others who injure him are liable. If a man cuts down his own saplings, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.

If one knocks his ankles [against each other, in walking] or rubs his legs [against each other]; a ba’al pikah and an ikkel. What is an ikkel? One whose knees do not touch each other when he puts his feet together. If he has a lump protruding from his thumb, or if his heel projects backward, or if his feet are wide like those of a goose. Or if his fingers lie one above the other. If they are webbed up to the joint, he is fit, if below the root, if he cuts it, he is also fit. If he has an additional finger and he cut it off, if there was a bone in it, he is unfit, but if not, he is fit. If he has additional fingers and additional toes, on each hand and foot six fingers and six toes, [making altogether] twenty-four [fingers and toes]: Rabbi Judah declares him fit, But the sages declare him unfit. One who has equal strength in both hands: Rabbi declares him unfit; But the sages declare him fit. A kushi, a gihur, a lavkan, a kippeah, a dwarf, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one intoxicated, or afflicted with plague marks which are clean – [these defects] disqualify in human beings but not in animals. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a mad animal is not a choice sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: also those afflicted with dangling warts they are unfit in human beings but are fit in animals.

If one cut off from any of these a piece one by one handbreadth it is susceptible to uncleanness. [If one cut off a one by one handbreadth piece] from the bottom of a basket it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one cut off from the sides of the basket: Rabbi Shimon says that it is not susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say one who cuts off a square handbreadth from anywhere, it is susceptible to uncleanness.

Ahab's well and the pool in Banias cave are fit. Water that has changed its color and the change arose from itself, remains fit. A water channel that comes from a distance is fit, as long as it is watched so that no one cuts it off. Rabbi Judah says: the presumption is that it is permitted. If some clay or earth fell into a well, one must wait until it becomes clear, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: he need not wait.

If one was praying and remembered that he already had prayed, Rav says, he cuts short, and Samuel says, he does not cut short. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: If only one would pray the whole day long, why, because prayer is never in vain. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Yoḥanan say that if one is in doubt whether he did pray or not, that he should not pray? He did not give him an answer. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: If one is in doubt whether he did pray or not, he should not pray. Rebbi Ḥanina did not say so but: They asked before Rebbi Yoḥanan, if one is in doubt whether he did pray or not? He told them, if only one would pray the whole day long, why, because prayer is never in vain.

If one was standing praying on the Sabbath; he forgot about the Sabbath and prayed for weekday. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Sheshet disagree, one says he cuts the benediction short and the other says, he finishes the benediction. All agree that he finishes “Gracious Giver of knowledge”. This follows Rebbi, since Rebbi said: I wonder why they eliminated “Gracious Giver of knowledge” on Sabbath; if there is no knowledge, from where comes prayer? Rebbi Isaac said: Knowledge is great because it is in the middle between two mentions of divine names as it is said (1Samuel 2:3): “Certainly, a God of knowledge is the Eternal”. Some want to understand from here (Prov.2:5): “Then you will understand the fear of the Eternal and the knowledge of God you will find.”

Abbaye ben Rebbi Benjamin stated: Those who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in their blessing. Those who stand before the Cohanim; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said the blessing even cuts through an iron wall. About those who stand on the side, we may understand from the following: If he wanted to sprinkle before him and he sprinkled behind him, behind him and he sprinkled before him, his sprinkling is invalid. Before him and he sprinkled on his sides, his sprinkling is valid. This implies that those who stand on the side are included in the blessing.

He who sees multitudes says: Praise to Him Who is wise in secrets! Just as their faces are not similar one to the other, so the opinions of one are not similar to another’s. When ben Zoma saw multitudes in Jerusalem, he said: Praise to Him Who created all these to serve me. How much did Adam toil until he could eat one piece of bread! He plowed, sowed, harrowed, weeded, harvested, bound sheaves, threshed, winnowed, selected, milled, sifted, made dough, split it, baked, and only after that could he eat a piece of bread. But I get up in the morning and find everything before me. See, how much toil Adam had to expend until he obtained a garment to wear! He sheared, bleached, separated the fibers, dyed, spun, weaved, washed, sewed, and after that he obtained a garment to wear. But I get up in the morning and find all before me. How many professionals work mornings and evenings! But I get up in the morning and find all before me. Similarly, ben Zoma said: What does a bad guest say? What did I eat from the householder, what did I drink from the householder? One piece I ate from him, one cup of wine I drank from him. All the effort he put in he did only for his wife and children! But a good guest says, praised be the householder, may the householder be remembered in a good way! How much wine did he bring before me, how many cuts did he bring before me! How much work did he do for me! All that effort he did only for me! And so it says (Job. 36:24): “Remember to magnify his work that people saw!”

MISHNAH: The following separate regarding peah: The river, the water canal, a private road, a public road, a private path or a public path open both summer and winter, a fallow field, a ploughed field and [another kind of] seed. He who cuts for animal feed makes a separation, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the sages say it does not create a separation unless he ploughed.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Both Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah said the same. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that he who cuts for fodder separates, so Rebbi Jehudah will say that he who cuts for fodder separates. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that an obligation for peah separates, so Rebbi Meïr will say that an obligation for peah separates. But we find that Rebbi Meïr says that an obligation for peah separates since we have stated: “If locusts ate it, ants undermined it, or a storm or animals broke it, it is free; everybody agrees that if he ploughed it separates, if he did not plough it does not interrupt.” Who is “everybody”? Does not Rebbi Meïr say, if it is free from peah, but if it were obligated it would interrupt even if he did not plough. Parallel to what we stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he started before it was one-third ripe, but if it is one-third ripe one is forbidden to cut.” If he cuts he is obligated for peah. And anything that is obligated for peah separates.

They wanted to say: What Rebbi Jehudah talks about is one who stands on one bank and cannot cut on the other bank, but if he stands in the middle and cuts on both banks it does not separate. It was found stated in disagreement: “If he was standing in the middle and harvesting on both banks, it separates; on one bank it does not separate.”

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. Not only if he finished his field but even if he cut some and said: “From here and further on I give for peah,” at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves and he separates from cut grain for standing grain.

Because he separates from cut grain for standing grain and from standing grain for cut grain but he does not separate from cut grain for either cut or standing grain. Sometimes he has to separate from cut grain for standing grain. How can this be? If he finished his field and left something standing on it for peah, at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves; he has to give from cut grain. Not only if he finished his field but even if he cut some and said: “From here and further on I give for peah,” at the moment he cuts the first stalk from this, peah returns to the sheaves and he separates from cut grain for standing grain.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Half a bunch of grapes are dropped berries. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Half a bunch of grapes or an entire bunch are dropped berries. But did we not state: “Two berries are dropped berries?” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: If he cuts and deposits them under the vine.

If they are made like a shepherd’s flute? Menahem in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Only if he cuts them equally.

MISHNAH: [If the field was] sown and he decided to plant, he should not say, I shall plant and then I shall turn over, but he shall turn over and then plant. [If it was] planted and he decided to sow, he should not say, I shall sow and then I shall uproot, but he should uproot and then sow. If he wishes, he cuts down to less than a hand-breadth, plants, and then takes out the roots. If his field was sown with hemp or arum, one should not sow on it because they produce all of three years. One is not required to weed grain in which there appeared aftergrowth of indigo, or the threshing floor on which many kinds are appearing, or fenugreek in which grasses appeared. But if he weeded or cut, one says to him, uproot everything except one kind.

MISHNAH: The rapist who sowed in a vineyard and it was taken from him, one cuts it even during a holiday. How much does he have to give to the workers? Up to one third. More than that he cuts normally, even after the holiday. When is the property called the rapist’s? From the moment it is sunk.

MISHNAH: The rapist who sowed in a vineyard and it was taken from him, one cuts it even during a holiday. How much does he have to give to the workers? Up to one third. More than that he cuts normally, even after the holiday. When is the property called the rapist’s? From the moment it is sunk.

MISHNAH: One fertilizes and hoes in melon and gourd fields until the New Year; the same applies to irrigated fields. One trims, removes, dusts, and smokes until the New Year. Rebbi Simeon said, one may even remove a leaf from a bunch in the Sabbatical year. One may remove stones until the New Year. One cuts, prunes, and shapes until the New Year. Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year, so is that of the sixth. Rebbi Simeon says, any time that I may work the tree I may shape it.

Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Simeon holds with Rebbi Joshua in cutting, that there are two tannaїtic positions: “One may remove stones until the New Year, one cuts, prunes, and shapes until the New Year” following the rabbis. “Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year, so is that of the sixth.” But there are three Tannaïm. “One may remove stones until the New Year, one cuts, prunes, and shapes until the New Year” following the rabbis. “Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year, so is that of the sixth,” even after that. “Rebbi Simeon says, any time that I may work the tree I may shape it,” until Pentecost.

Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Simeon holds with Rebbi Joshua in cutting, that there are two tannaїtic positions: “One may remove stones until the New Year, one cuts, prunes, and shapes until the New Year” following the rabbis. “Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year, so is that of the sixth.” But there are three Tannaïm. “One may remove stones until the New Year, one cuts, prunes, and shapes until the New Year” following the rabbis. “Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year, so is that of the sixth,” even after that. “Rebbi Simeon says, any time that I may work the tree I may shape it,” until Pentecost.

MISHNAH: If somebody thins out olive trees, the House of Shammai say he should cut them off, the House of Hillel say he may take out the roots, but they agree that one who levels may only cut off. What is thinning? One or two. Levelling are three adjacent to one another. When has this been said? On his own property. But from another’s property, even one who flattens may take out the roots. If somebody cuts down an olive tree, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. If somebody cuts down a sycamore trunk, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. One does not cut a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical year because that is [agricultural] work. Rebbi Jehudah says, in a normal way it is forbidden but he [may] cut higher than ten hand-breadths or cut it down level with the ground.

MISHNAH: If somebody thins out olive trees, the House of Shammai say he should cut them off, the House of Hillel say he may take out the roots, but they agree that one who levels may only cut off. What is thinning? One or two. Levelling are three adjacent to one another. When has this been said? On his own property. But from another’s property, even one who flattens may take out the roots. If somebody cuts down an olive tree, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. If somebody cuts down a sycamore trunk, he should not cover [the stump] with dust but cover it with stones or straw. One does not cut a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical year because that is [agricultural] work. Rebbi Jehudah says, in a normal way it is forbidden but he [may] cut higher than ten hand-breadths or cut it down level with the ground.

MISHNAH: If somebody cuts shoots of vines or cuts reeds, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says he leaves a hand-breadth but Rebbi Aqiba says he cuts as he is used to, with an axe, a sickle, or a saw, or anything he wants. In the Sabbatical year one may bind a tree that was split, not to heal it but to stop [the split] from widening.

MISHNAH: If somebody cuts shoots of vines or cuts reeds, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says he leaves a hand-breadth but Rebbi Aqiba says he cuts as he is used to, with an axe, a sickle, or a saw, or anything he wants. In the Sabbatical year one may bind a tree that was split, not to heal it but to stop [the split] from widening.

MISHNAH: If somebody cuts shoots of vines or cuts reeds, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says he leaves a hand-breadth but Rebbi Aqiba says he cuts as he is used to, with an axe, a sickle, or a saw, or anything he wants. In the Sabbatical year one may bind a tree that was split, not to heal it but to stop [the split] from widening.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody cuts down an olive tree,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody cuts reeds, Rebbi Jehudah says at a place where one is used to cut, he should tear out; at a place where one is used to tear out, he should cut. In any case, he should cut higher than a hand-breadth. If somebody cuts down for logs, he should not plane and cut in steps, cut in steps to create joints, but he should try to cut them straight.” It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, at a place where one usually planes, he should cut in steps, in steps he should plane and cut down at the ground, but he should not cut with an axe.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody cuts down an olive tree,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody cuts reeds, Rebbi Jehudah says at a place where one is used to cut, he should tear out; at a place where one is used to tear out, he should cut. In any case, he should cut higher than a hand-breadth. If somebody cuts down for logs, he should not plane and cut in steps, cut in steps to create joints, but he should try to cut them straight.” It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, at a place where one usually planes, he should cut in steps, in steps he should plane and cut down at the ground, but he should not cut with an axe.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody cuts down an olive tree,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody cuts reeds, Rebbi Jehudah says at a place where one is used to cut, he should tear out; at a place where one is used to tear out, he should cut. In any case, he should cut higher than a hand-breadth. If somebody cuts down for logs, he should not plane and cut in steps, cut in steps to create joints, but he should try to cut them straight.” It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, at a place where one usually planes, he should cut in steps, in steps he should plane and cut down at the ground, but he should not cut with an axe.”

HALAKHAH: : “If somebody cuts shoots of vines,” etc. What means ביחילו? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if it comes alive, as you say (Zach.11:8): “And their souls were too much for me.”

It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, one may eat figs and grapes in the night without worry, since it is said (Ps. 116:6) “the Eternal watches over the simple-minded.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: A fish with pecking marks is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav: A living fish with pecking marks is forbidden. If it is salted, through the salt it trembles. Dead, one cuts out the place of the pecking.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to another person, here take this as for twenty figs that I shall choose, he chooses and eats; for the bunch of grapes that I shall choose, he selects single grape berries and eats; for the pomegranate that I shall choose, he picks single kernels and eats; for the watermelon that I shall choose, he bites off and eats. But if he said, for these twenty figs, for these two bunches, for these two pomegranates, for these two watermelon, he eats as he is used to and he is free since he bought when it was still connected to the ground. If somebody hires a worker to slice figs; if that one told him, on condition that I may eat from the figs, he eats and is free; on condition that I and my son will eat, or that my son may eat in lieu of my wages, he may eat and is free, and his son may eat but is obligated; on condition that I may eat while cutting and after cutting, while cutting he eats and is free, after cutting he eats and is obligated since he does not eat because of the Torah. That is the principle: He who eats because of the Torah is free; if he does not eat because of the Torah he is obligated. If he was working with lĕbāsîm he should not eat benôt ševa‘ and vice-versa. But he may hold back until he reaches the place of good ones and eat there. If somebody switches with another person so that each one eats directly, or each one cuts, or one eats and one cuts, he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who exchanges to eat is obligated, to cut is free.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to another person, here take this as for twenty figs that I shall choose, he chooses and eats; for the bunch of grapes that I shall choose, he selects single grape berries and eats; for the pomegranate that I shall choose, he picks single kernels and eats; for the watermelon that I shall choose, he bites off and eats. But if he said, for these twenty figs, for these two bunches, for these two pomegranates, for these two watermelon, he eats as he is used to and he is free since he bought when it was still connected to the ground. If somebody hires a worker to slice figs; if that one told him, on condition that I may eat from the figs, he eats and is free; on condition that I and my son will eat, or that my son may eat in lieu of my wages, he may eat and is free, and his son may eat but is obligated; on condition that I may eat while cutting and after cutting, while cutting he eats and is free, after cutting he eats and is obligated since he does not eat because of the Torah. That is the principle: He who eats because of the Torah is free; if he does not eat because of the Torah he is obligated. If he was working with lĕbāsîm he should not eat benôt ševa‘ and vice-versa. But he may hold back until he reaches the place of good ones and eat there. If somebody switches with another person so that each one eats directly, or each one cuts, or one eats and one cuts, he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who exchanges to eat is obligated, to cut is free.

If he dyed it and then dyed a second time and spoiled it, if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to him who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to him who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden, here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large?” Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind, can it be compared to: “Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them, but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks.

There, we have stated: “A man may carry his son with a stone in his hand, or a basket with a stone in it.” The House of Rebbi stated, food and stone in it, we do not say anything, for Rebbi Romanos brought out a pan from Rebbi’s house full of coals on the Sabbath. Could you say that coals are pressed? But it must have oil left in it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, cuts of fragrances were on it.

MISHNAH: There are 39 categories of work. He who ploughs, who sows, who harvests, who binds into sheaves, who threshes, and who winnows, who selects, who grinds, and who sifts, who makes dough, and who bakes. He who shears wool, who bleaches it, who cards it, who dyes it, who spins it, who prepares the loom, who ties two threads as warp, who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties. Also who sews two stitches, who tears in order to sew two stitches. He who catches a deer, who slaughters it, who skins it, who salts it, who rubs it clean, who tans it, who cuts it, who writes two letters, and who erases in order to write two letters. He who builds, and who tears down, who extinguishes fire, and who lights fire, and who hits with a hammer, and who transports from one domain to another; these are the 39 categories of work.

The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all [liable] because of harvesting.” Rebbi Sidor said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rebbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all [liable] because of harvesting.” Rebbi Sidor said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rebbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

All categories of work they learned from the Tabernacle. What kind of ploughing was in the Tabernacle? They ploughed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plough to become liable? Rebbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rebbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout. There, we have stated: “Two green melon seeds make liable, two squash seeds, two Egyptian bean seeds.” It was stated, two Median wheat kernels. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since wheat was so much appreciated they treated it like garden vegetables that are not eaten. For everything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing: One who digs, who cuts, who inserts, who deposits dung, who hoes, who fertilizes, who sweeps, who sprinkles, who splits blocks, who clears forests, who sets fire to reed thickets or palm swamps, and following Rebbi Zeˋira a water canal prepares its banks for sowing, who removes stones, who builds terraces, who fills the rifts under olive trees, and who makes depressions for vines, and for anything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

This sausage maker, if he selects shavings for casings, because of selecting; if he hacks with a coarse file, because of threshing, if he pounds in a mortar, because he is grinding; if it produces liquid, because of making dough; if he fills a hollow, because of building; if he cuts off bast, because of cutting; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

“And who grinds.” He who pulverizes salt, clay shards, peppers, is liable because of grinding. He who cuts into little pieces chalk, gypsum, chaff, sand, dirt, is liable because of sifting. He who kneads chalk, gypsum, dust, eye-salve, plaster, drugs, is liable because of making dough. One who makes dough, or kneads dough, or forms dough, all are because of making dough. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, there you say, “and he is liable for making its dough, and for its forming, and for its baking,” and here you are saying so? But there he has to divide for he is liable for each single one, but here he is liable only once. You see that baking is a derivative of cooking, and you are saying so? But it was stated here since we are stating the order of the dough.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

One who makes ropes. The one who twines them is liable because of spinning. One who makes basket work of reeds, sieves, bast mats, is liable because of weaving. A woman when she prepares the loom, because of preparing. When she fastens the web, because of tying threads. When she erects [the loom], because of building. When she hits, because of weaving. When she cuts the threads, because of cutting. When she finishes her work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes boxes, when he starts, because of preparing. When he tailors, because of sewing. When he bends, because of building. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes bed-sheets, lengthwise because of preparing, crosswise because of weaving. Grating, because of tying threads. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. There are two warp threads per peg and two pegs for each warp thread.

One who makes ropes. The one who twines them is liable because of spinning. One who makes basket work of reeds, sieves, bast mats, is liable because of weaving. A woman when she prepares the loom, because of preparing. When she fastens the web, because of tying threads. When she erects [the loom], because of building. When she hits, because of weaving. When she cuts the threads, because of cutting. When she finishes her work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes boxes, when he starts, because of preparing. When he tailors, because of sewing. When he bends, because of building. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes bed-sheets, lengthwise because of preparing, crosswise because of weaving. Grating, because of tying threads. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. There are two warp threads per peg and two pegs for each warp thread.

One who makes ropes. The one who twines them is liable because of spinning. One who makes basket work of reeds, sieves, bast mats, is liable because of weaving. A woman when she prepares the loom, because of preparing. When she fastens the web, because of tying threads. When she erects [the loom], because of building. When she hits, because of weaving. When she cuts the threads, because of cutting. When she finishes her work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes boxes, when he starts, because of preparing. When he tailors, because of sewing. When he bends, because of building. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes bed-sheets, lengthwise because of preparing, crosswise because of weaving. Grating, because of tying threads. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. There are two warp threads per peg and two pegs for each warp thread.

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid). “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid). “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

Do they disagree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? Since it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meїr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.” This implies that they do not disagree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rebbi Abba said, the Mishnah is about a rope hanging down, a rope tied hanging down.

MISHNAH: One does not use midwifery for animals on a holiday but one helps. One helps a woman in childbirth on the Sabbath, and calls a midwife for her from place to place, and desecrates the Sabbath for her, and ties the umbilical cord; Rebbi Yose says, also one cuts it. All that is necessary for circumcision one does on the Sabbath.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement before the Sabbath he brings it openly on the Sabbath and in times of danger he brings it covered by the testimony of witnesses. In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, one cuts down trees to make charcoal to make iron; Rebbi Aqiba stated a principle: Any work which he might have done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside; circumcision which is impossible to perform on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

But was it not stated, “the Sages agree with Rebbi Meїr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary [to mention] on a holiday.”. This implies that they treated the clothes press as if it were in the ground. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so, “a washer’s one may not be touched.”

MISHNAH: One cuts squash for animals and a cadaver for dogs. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.

MISHNAH: One replaces a wound dressing in the Temple but not in the countryside; a new one is forbidden here and there. One ties strings in the Temple but not in the countryside; a new one is forbidden here and there. One cuts a wart in the Temple but not in the countryside; using an implement is forbidden here and there.

“One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside.” There we have stated: “cutting his wart does not push aside;” and here you are saying so? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi (Pedat) [Pedaya]: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi [Yose] said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Levi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben (Yaqim) [Laqish] parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: All who destroy are not liable, except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

“Cutting its wart.” There, we have stated: “One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside; using an implement is forbidden here and there.” Here, you are saying, it pushes aside; there, you are saying, it does not push aside.

MISHNAH: A limb which partially was taken out one cuts until he reaches the bone, and pares until he reaches the joint, where he cuts; but for sacrifices he cuts with a dagger since there breaking bones is not forbidden.. From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside. Windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside.

MISHNAH: A limb which partially was taken out one cuts until he reaches the bone, and pares until he reaches the joint, where he cuts; but for sacrifices he cuts with a dagger since there breaking bones is not forbidden.. From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside. Windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside.

MISHNAH: A limb which partially was taken out one cuts until he reaches the bone, and pares until he reaches the joint, where he cuts; but for sacrifices he cuts with a dagger since there breaking bones is not forbidden.. From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside. Windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad majus. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which left what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? If you are saying that piggul and leftovers do not disqualify heave, about that which left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by [touching] itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad maius. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which was left, what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which was left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? About that which was left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by touching itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

MISHNAH: Coins found near vendors of animals always are Tithe money. On the Temple Mount, profane. In Jerusalem, during the remainder of the year they are profane, during the holidays everything is Second Tithe. Of meat found in the Temple courtyard, limbs are elevation sacrifices and cuts purification sacrifices; in Jerusalem well-being sacrifices. In either case it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning. If it was found in the countryside, limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted.

MISHNAH: Coins found near vendors of animals always are Tithe money. On the Temple Mount, profane. In Jerusalem, during the remainder of the year they are profane, during the holidays everything is Second Tithe. Of meat found in the Temple courtyard, limbs are elevation sacrifices and cuts purification sacrifices; in Jerusalem well-being sacrifices. In either case it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning. If it was found in the countryside, limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted. On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted.

Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: One flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion; and the Mishnah says so: “limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted.” Are cuts not really permitted? And similarly, one flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion.

Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: One flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion; and the Mishnah says so: “limbs are carrion, cuts are permitted.” Are cuts not really permitted? And similarly, one flogs for carrion limbs because of carrion.

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.

“Originally they did not move from there the entire day.” They changed and made them like a vessel which was brought from outside the Sabbath domain after nightfall which one is permitted to move within four cubits. They changed and made them like vessels which started Sabbath in a courtyard which one is permitted to move within the courtyard, until the elder Rabban Gamliel came and instituted that they could walk 2’000 cubits in every direction. It was stated, this also applies to one who comes to circumcise a baby. The baraita follows Rebbi Eliezer, since we have stated there, “in addition, Rebbi Eliezar said, one cuts down trees to make charcoal to make iron.”

Samuel pounded on the side of the mortar. Rav said, anything that is pounded may be pounded in its ordinary way. Rav Huna, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Garlic, and cress, and mustard seed are pounded in their ordinary way. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes oenanthium on a Sabbath is liable because of compounding. Is it therefore permitted on a holiday? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Making oenanthium on a holiday is forbidden because of compounding. Isaac Gold asked Rebbi Joḥanan, may one pound for spice wine on a holiday? He said to him, it is permitted. <rebbi isaac from atosha asked rebi simeon be laqish, may one pound to make spice wine on a holiday? he said to him, it is permitted;> give it to me and I shall drink. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Would one not act well in pounding it the day before? He said to him, yes. The argument of Rebbi Abbahu is inverted. Here he says permitted, and there he says forbidden. But since Rebbi Abbahu knew that Rebbi Ze`ira was restrictive, and that they are restrictive, therefore he agreed with them. Some want to say that so he said to him: If one wants that it be good he will not pound it the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira asked Kallidromos, the slave of Rebbi Judah the Prince, does your master pound to make spice wine on a holiday? He said to him yes, and all kinds of cuts of meat. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Immi, the father of Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris. Where do they disagree? For grilling. Put for the pot it is permitted. Rebbi Naḥum said, Rebbi Samuel bar Abba asked about noodle dough. To let it dry is forbidden, for the pot it is permitted, part and part is questionable.

“Rebbi Meïr says, also one freshly makes accessible and takes.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: But only at the place of access. And so it was stated “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about cachets in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.”

“All these were said on a holiday, so much more on the Sabbath..” Are these it? Are there no others? There is stoning on the Sabbath, there is no stoning on a holiday. There is extirpation on the Sabbath, there is no extirpation on a holiday. There is flogging on a holiday, there is no flogging on the Sabbath. If you would say, we are coming to state cases connected with food, did we not state: “one lowers produce through a skylight on the holiday but not on the Sabbath”? In addition from the following, one grinds aromatic wood for a circumcision on a holiday but not on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yose said, only if he circumcised. In addition from what was stated, “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.”

“All these were said on a holiday, so much more on the Sabbath..” Are these it? Are there no others? There is stoning on the Sabbath, there is no stoning on a holiday. There is extirpation on the Sabbath, there is no extirpation on a holiday. There is flogging on a holiday, there is no flogging on the Sabbath. If you would say, we are coming to state cases connected with food, did we not state: “one lowers produce through a skylight on the holiday but not on the Sabbath”? In addition from the following, one grinds aromatic wood for a circumcision on a holiday but not on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yose said, only if he circumcised. In addition from what was stated, “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.”

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state, “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state, “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.