directly

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.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, pregnant and nursing women do not fast on any fast-day for which the Court decides to interrupt. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, this seems reasonable if they originally decided not to interrupt, but if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women have to fast. It was stated thus: “Pregnant and nursing women fast regularly on the Ninth of Av [and the Day of Atonement] and on the first and the second groups of fast-days. But on the seven last ones they do not fast; nevertheless they should not spoil themselves but eat and drink for the necessities of the child.” Does this not refer to the case that they decided originally not to interrupt? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women do not fast.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, pregnant and nursing women do not fast on any fast-day for which the Court decides to interrupt. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, this seems reasonable if they originally decided not to interrupt, but if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women have to fast. It was stated thus: “Pregnant and nursing women fast regularly on the Ninth of Av [and the Day of Atonement] and on the first and the second groups of fast-days. But on the seven last ones they do not fast; nevertheless they should not spoil themselves but eat and drink for the necessities of the child.” Does this not refer to the case that they decided originally not to interrupt? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women do not fast.

“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disqualified for heave but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

With what are we here dealing ? With the case of one who has a sore throat; for there is a teaching : One suffering from a sore throat may not directly mollify it with oil on the Sabbath, but he should put a large quantity of oil into an elaiogaron and swallow it.

What is the reason of the one who says that the rule of lavud is not applied in the middle? — Because we learned: If a skylight in [the roof of] a house was of one handbreadth square, and there was an object of uncleanliness in the house, all the house is unclean, but what is directly below the skylight is clean. If the unclean object is directly below the skylight, the whole house is clean.

What is the reason of the one who says that the rule of lavud is not applied in the middle? — Because we learned: If a skylight in [the roof of] a house was of one handbreadth square, and there was an object of uncleanliness in the house, all the house is unclean, but what is directly below the skylight is clean. If the unclean object is directly below the skylight, the whole house is clean.

If the skylight was less than a handbreadth square, and there was an unclean object in the house, what is directly below the skylight is clean. If the unclean object is directly below the skylight, the whole house is clean.

If the skylight was less than a handbreadth square, and there was an unclean object in the house, what is directly below the skylight is clean. If the unclean object is directly below the skylight, the whole house is clean.

If it is between a lower and an upper [beam] what is between them becomes unclean. If it is above the upper [roof beams], what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean. [In the case] where the upper [roof beams] were [over the gaps] between the lower [roof beams]: a) If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, what is beneath all of them becomes unclean; b) If above them, what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean.

If it is between a lower and an upper [beam] what is between them becomes unclean. If it is above the upper [roof beams], what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean. [In the case] where the upper [roof beams] were [over the gaps] between the lower [roof beams]: a) If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, what is beneath all of them becomes unclean; b) If above them, what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean.

GEMARA. What happens if he doesn't want to give it to him as a gift? R. Huna said: He should include the price of the etrog in that of the lulav. But why should he not pay him directly?

R. Ḥanina b. Papa pointed out an inconsistency. It is written (Is., 21.14): "Unto him that is thirsty bring ye water," and again it is written (ibid., 55.1): "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters?!" If he is a worthy scholar, then "unto him that is thirsty bring ye water," but if he is not worthy, then: "ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters." R. 'Aḥa b. Ḥanina pointed out an inconsistency. It is written (Prov., 5.16): "Let thy springs be dispersed abroad," and directly after it is written: "Let them be only thine own, and not strangers with thee!" If he is a worthy scholar, "let thy springs be dispersed abroad," but if not, "let them be only thine own."

six hundred and eleven. "I am..." and "There should not be to you.." were heard directly from The Mighty.