disagreed

Now Zedekiah was twenty and one year's old when he took the government; and had the same mother with his brother Jehoiakim, but was a despiser of justice and of his duty, for truly those of the same age with him were wicked about him, and the whole multitude did what unjust and insolent things they pleased; for which reason the prophet Jeremiah came often to him, and protested to him, and insisted, that he must leave off his impieties and transgressions, and take care of what was right, and neither give ear to the rulers, [among whom were wicked men,] nor give credit to their false prophets, who deluded them, as if the king of Babylon would make no more war against them, and as if the Egyptians would make war against him, and conquer him, since what they said was not true, and the events would not prove such [as they expected]. Now as to Zedekiah himself, while he heard the prophet speak, he believed him, and agreed to every thing as true, and supposed it was for his advantage; but then his friends perverted him, and dissuaded him from what the prophet advised, and obliged him to do what they pleased. Ezekiel also foretold in Babylon what calamities were coming upon the people, which when he heard, he sent accounts of them unto Jerusalem. But Zedekiah did not believe their prophecies, for the reason following: It happened that the two prophets agreed with one another in what they said as in all other things, that the city should be taken, and Zedekiah himself should be taken captive; but Ezekiel disagreed with him, and said that Zedekiah should not see Babylon, while Jeremiah said to him, that the king of Babylon should carry him away thither in bonds....

These were the discourses the soldiers had one with another by themselves, and they communicated them to all such as came in to them. Now those that inquired about this matter willingly embraced the invitation that was made them to join with the rest; so they carried Claudius into the camp, crowding about him as his guard, and encompassing him about, one chairman still succeeding another, that their vehement endeavors might not be hindered. But as to the populace and senators, they disagreed in their opinions. The latter were very desirous to recover their former dignity, and were zealous to get clear of the slavery that had been brought on them by the injurious treatment of the tyrants, which the present opportunity afforded them; but for the people, who were envious against them, and knew that the emperors were capable of curbing their covetous temper, and were a refuge from them, they were very glad that Claudius had been seized upon, and brought to them, and thought that if Claudius were made emperor, he would prevent a civil war, such as there was in the days of Pompey. But when the senate knew that Claudius was brought into the camp by the soldiers, they sent to him those of their body which had the best character for their virtues, that they might inform him that he ought to do nothing by violence, in order to gain the government; that he who was a single person, one either already or hereafter to be a member of their body, ought to yield to the senate, which consisted of so great a number; that he ought to let the law take place in the disposal of all that related to the public order, and to remember how greatly the former tyrants had afflicted their city, and what dangers both he and they had escaped under Caius; and that he ought not to hate the heavy burden of tyranny, when the injury is done by others, while he did himself willfully treat his country after a mad and insolent manner; that if he would comply with them, and demonstrate that his firm resolution was to live quietly and virtuously, he would have the greatest honors decreed to him that a free people could bestow; and by subjecting himself to the law, would obtain this branch of commendation, that he acted like a man of virtue, both as a ruler and a subject; but that if he would act foolishly, and learn no wisdom by Caius's death, they would not permit him to go on; that a great part of the army was got together for them, with plenty of weapons, and a great number of slaves, which they could make use of; that good hope was a great matter in such cases, as was also good fortune; and that the gods would never assist any others but those that undertook to act with virtue and goodness, who can be no other than such as fight for the liberty of their country.

Rabbi Yishmael said three things, and Rabbi Akiba disagreed with him. Garlic or unripe grapes or green ears of grain were being crushed [on the eve of the Sabbath] while it is yet day: Rabbi Yishmael says: “He may finish crushing after it grows dark.” But Rabbi Akiba says: “He may not finish.”

Rabbi Akiba declared three things; about two they agreed with him, and about one they disagreed with him. About a lime-burner’s sandal, that it is liable to contract midras impurity; And about the remains of a [broken] oven, that they must be four handbreadths high [in order to retain impurity], whereas they used to say three and [when he said four] they agreed with him. And about one they disagreed with him About a stool, from which two of its covering-boards had been removed, the one beside the other, which Rabbi Akiba pronounces able to contract impurity, but the Sages declare unable to contract impurity.

Rabbi Akiba declared three things; about two they agreed with him, and about one they disagreed with him. About a lime-burner’s sandal, that it is liable to contract midras impurity; And about the remains of a [broken] oven, that they must be four handbreadths high [in order to retain impurity], whereas they used to say three and [when he said four] they agreed with him. And about one they disagreed with him About a stool, from which two of its covering-boards had been removed, the one beside the other, which Rabbi Akiba pronounces able to contract impurity, but the Sages declare unable to contract impurity.

Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Ishmael put this question to Rabbi Joshua as they were walking on the way, “Why have they forbidden the cheese of non-Jews?” He replied, because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah (an animal that was not properly slaughtered.” He (Rabbi Ishmael) said: “but is not the rennet of a burnt-offering more strictly forbidden than the rennet of a nevelah? [and yet] it was said that a priest who is not fastidious may suck it out raw.” (Though the Sages disagreed with this opinion, and they said that no benefit may be derived from it, although one who consumed it did not trespass [temple property). Rabbi Joshua responded: “The reason then is because they curdle it with the rennet from calves sacrificed to idols.” He (Rabbi Ishmael) said to him: “if that be so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it?” He (Rabbi Joshua) diverted him to another matter, saying: “Ishmael, how do you read for your [masc.] love is more delightful than wine” or “your [fem.] love etc. (Song of Songs 1:2” He replied: “your [fem.] love is better …” He said to him: this is not so, as it is proved by its fellow [-verse]: your ointments [masc.] have a goodly fragrance … [therefore do the maidens love you] (Song of Songs 1:3).”

So we find that Rebbi Meïr disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. We have stated: One rubs olentia on a sick person on the Sabbath; but only if it was mixed with oil and wine before Sabbath eve. But if he did not mix it before Sabbath eve it is forbidden. We have stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said: Rebbi Meïr did allow to mix wine and oil and to rub it onto a sick persion on Sabbath. When he fell sick, we wanted to prepare the same for him but he did not let us do it. We said to him: Our teacher, are you going to invalidate your words when your life is in danger? He said to us: even though I am lenient for others, I am stringent for myself because my colleagues disagree with me.

So we find that Rebbi Aqiba disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. As we have stated there (Mishnah Ahilot 2:6): “Spine and skull from two dead bodies, a limb composed of limbs of two dead bodies, limbs taken from two living persons, Rebbi Aqiba declares them to be impure and the Sages declare them to be pure.” We have stated: “It happened that they brought a chest full of bones from Kefar Tabi to Lod and deposited it in the open air [the courtyard] of the synagogue. Theodoros the physician entered and with him all physicians. Theodoros declared that there was no complete spine from one dead person and no complete skull from one dead person. They said: Since we have here some who declare this pure and others who declare it impure, let us vote upon it. They started with Rebbi Aqiba and he declared it to be pure. They said: Since you had declared it impure, but now you vote for it to be pure, it is pure.”

So we find that Rebbi Simeon disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. As we have stated there (Mishnah Ševiït 9:1) “Rebbi Simeon says: all aftergrowth is allowed except the aftergrowth of cabbage because nothing similar grows wild. But the Sages say that all aftergrowth is forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai acted on this in a Sabbatical year. He saw a man harvesting aftergrowth. He said to him: Is that not forbidden, is that not aftergrowth? The man answered him back: Are you not the one who allows it? He retorted: Do not my colleagues disagree with me? He recited over him (Eccl. 10:6): “He who breaches a fence may be bitten by a snake”, and this is what happened to that man.

And Rabban Gamliel disagreed with the Sages and did act on his own opinion! There is a difference here since the recitiation of the Shema‘ is for study. But then they could have read also after the start of dawn. Some want to say that in the other cases it was possible to uphold the words of the Sages. But here it was after midnight and they could no longer fulfill the precept of the Sages; so he told his sons to act according to his opinion.

Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray, should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose drew me to an inn and said to me: Here my father prayed Saturday (Friday night) prayers on Friday. Rebbi Ammi said: Rebbi Yoḥanan disagrees but he should not have disagreed since one adds from the profane to the holy time; in addition, donkey drivers come from Arab to Sepphoris and say, Rebbi Ḥanina ben Dosa already did consecrate the Sabbath in his town. But so it has been said, that Rebbi Ḥanina said: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose drew me to an inn and said to me, here my father prayed Saturday night prayers on the Sabbath. But even with that he should not have disagreed, since Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. In the house of Rebbi Yannaï they said: If a man went to bed, one does not bother him to get up. Rebbi Zeïra said, all the time that I followed this rule, I was afraid in the night. You have only what Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded etc.

Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray, should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose drew me to an inn and said to me: Here my father prayed Saturday (Friday night) prayers on Friday. Rebbi Ammi said: Rebbi Yoḥanan disagrees but he should not have disagreed since one adds from the profane to the holy time; in addition, donkey drivers come from Arab to Sepphoris and say, Rebbi Ḥanina ben Dosa already did consecrate the Sabbath in his town. But so it has been said, that Rebbi Ḥanina said: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose drew me to an inn and said to me, here my father prayed Saturday night prayers on the Sabbath. But even with that he should not have disagreed, since Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. In the house of Rebbi Yannaï they said: If a man went to bed, one does not bother him to get up. Rebbi Zeïra said, all the time that I followed this rule, I was afraid in the night. You have only what Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before the congregation that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded etc.

When does one start to make him an appendix? Rebbi Avina said: Rab Ḥuna and Rav Yehudah disagreed, both in the name of Samuel. One said, that he has to understand the nature of a benediction; the other one said that he has to understand to Whom one has to recite the benediction. Rebbi Nassa said, many times did I eat with my father Taḥlipha and my uncle Aninia bar Sisai and they did not recite the ‘invitation’ with me until I grew two pubic hairs.

They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Yose said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand.

Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. One said, one checks out before giving clothing but one does not check out for necessities of life. The other said, even before giving clothing one does not check out, because of the covenant of the patriarch Abraham. A baraita disagrees with him who says that even before giving clothing one does not check out. He explains it for giving him according to his status, as we have stated: “When has this been said? If they do not know him. But if they know him, they also clothe him, everything befitting his status.” But was it not stated: “For food thirty days, for clothing six months.” Explain it, to contribute. But was it not stated: “For food thirty days, for assessments and charity twelve months?” This means to contribute, the earlier must mean to receive. It still means to contribute; what does it mean, for assessments and charity twelve months? For the salaries of scribes and teachers.

This is a baraita: “Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, as long as they are sold en bloc, are free. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the great Rebbi Yose sent me an etrog and said to me: this came into my hand from Caesarea. I understood from this three things: That it was certain, could become impure, and he did not have another one. That it was certain, because the fruits of Caesarea are certain. That it could become impure, because they sprinkle water on it. That he did not have another one, because if he had, he would have tithed from one on the other.” Why could he not have tithed from itself on itself? Because he was mindful of the saying of Bar Kappara, for Bar Kappara said that people do not send things that are defective to their friends. But is that not our Mishnah? “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.” This tells you that, even though he disagreed with the rabbis, he did not act according to his own opinion.

Rebbi Taypha the Red in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Samaritans can be trusted with deposits. Is that not the Mishnah: “With a Samaritan”? Our Mishnah before they became suspect, he comes to tell us even after they became suspect. How is it, should he be trusted to say, I took it and replaced it by other deposits that were put in order? If you believe him in that he took it, you should believe him in what he gave. If you do not believe that he took, do not believe that he gave. You believe a Samaritan that he gave and you do not believe that he took. Rebbi Jonah asked: What are we talking about? If he says, they are my own, even an am haäreẓ should not be trusted. If he says, X took tithes for me, even the Samaritan should be believed. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect.

It was stated: “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits from me, they are from an orlah tree, they are from a vineyard in its fourth year,’ cannot be believed. If he says, ‘I brought them from a certain Gentile,’ he may be trusted for restrictions, the words of Rebbi. The Sages say, the words of a Gentile are irrelevant.” Rebbi Judan asked, what if he calls out when he is uninformed? Rebbi Judan asked, what if one holds that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, since they disagreed: “A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects”?

HALAKHAH: : Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If ṭevel is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe. Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

“The House of Shammai say”, etc. It was stated: If somebody sells an ox and it turns out be a goring one, Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you for slaughtering. What are we talking about? If he sold it to a sharecropper, he sold it for ploughing. If he sold it to a butcher, he sold it for slaughter. But we are considering that he sold it to a broker. Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering. The reasoning of Rav is inverted, the reasoning of Samuel is inverted. For they disagreed: If he sold it during the Jubilee year itself, Rav said he acquired it and it leaves his hand in the Jubilee year; Samuel says he did not acquire. The reasoning of Rav is inverted: there he said he acquired and here he said he did not acquire. There the Jubilee is public knowledge but here there is an erroneous transaction. The reasoning of Samuel is inverted: there he said he did not acquire and here he said he acquired. For what purpose did he sell it to him if not for sowing? But here he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering.

Rebbi Abbahu went up to Arbel and was received by Abba bar Benjamin. They came and asked him about these onions; he taught them the statement of Rebbi Zeïra “once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.” He saw them relying on him; then he said to them: I was referring only to those that are bent down Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I know beginning and end; when he heard that Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Ammi disagreed, he shrank from it.

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit, as we have stated: “Whether he gives it after thirty days or after ten years.” Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge, but the other said, if he writes him a prozbol.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases, there it is one case.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery.

“ Pure heave olives should be made into oil, impure should not; grapes either pure or impure should not be processed [into wine], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob says in his name, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and pure grapes should be processed, but not impures ones. Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and grapes should be processed, whether pure or impure. Rebbi (Joḥanan) said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed and impure grapes should not be processed; they disagreed about impure olives and pure grapes where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed.” They all form a majority against Rebbi Meïr about pure grapes, that they should be processed. Why does he say, they should not be processed? They are more valuable as food than as drink. They all form a majority against Rebbi Jehudah about impure grapes, that they should not be processed. Why does he say, they should be processed? To be able to use seeds and skins. About impure olives, Rebbi and Rebbi Meïr form one group, Rebbi Jacob and Rebbi Jehudah another one. How does one act?

“ Pure heave olives should be made into oil, impure should not; grapes either pure or impure should not be processed [into wine], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob says in his name, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and pure grapes should be processed, but not impures ones. Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and grapes should be processed, whether pure or impure. Rebbi (Joḥanan) said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed and impure grapes should not be processed; they disagreed about impure olives and pure grapes where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed.” They all form a majority against Rebbi Meïr about pure grapes, that they should be processed. Why does he say, they should not be processed? They are more valuable as food than as drink. They all form a majority against Rebbi Jehudah about impure grapes, that they should not be processed. Why does he say, they should be processed? To be able to use seeds and skins. About impure olives, Rebbi and Rebbi Meïr form one group, Rebbi Jacob and Rebbi Jehudah another one. How does one act?

“ Pure heave olives should be made into oil, impure should not; grapes either pure or impure should not be processed [into wine], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob says in his name, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and pure grapes should be processed, but not impures ones. Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed; they disagreed about impure ones where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed, and grapes should be processed, whether pure or impure. Rebbi (Joḥanan) said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree that pure olives should be processed and impure grapes should not be processed; they disagreed about impure olives and pure grapes where Rebbi Eliezer says they should not be processed, but Rebbi Joshua said they should be processed.” They all form a majority against Rebbi Meïr about pure grapes, that they should be processed. Why does he say, they should not be processed? They are more valuable as food than as drink. They all form a majority against Rebbi Jehudah about impure grapes, that they should not be processed. Why does he say, they should be processed? To be able to use seeds and skins. About impure olives, Rebbi and Rebbi Meïr form one group, Rebbi Jacob and Rebbi Jehudah another one. How does one act?

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, or unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he did buy them, he has to eat their worth.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef and Samuel disagreed. One said here as a sale, there as redemption. The other one said here if the seller is present, there if the seller went away. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Samuel, the buy is acquired, that means he is the one who said here as a sale, there as redemption.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagreed. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, one does not give tithe to Cohanim but Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one gives tithe to Cohanim. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah objected to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You shall eat it everywhere”, come and eat it by a grave! He said to him, what means “everywhere”? In the courtyard of the Temple. He retorted, but is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You and your house”? Does a woman enter the courtyard of the Temple? Rebbi Abba understood it from the following occasion: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was used to take tithes from a certain garden. That garden had two exits, one to a place of impurity and one open to a place of purity. Rebbi Aqiba went to him and said, open this one and lock the other one. If he will come, tell him to come by that way. He also said, if he sends a student, tell him “you” is written. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah heard this and said, that is Aqiba ben Joseph’s whip. At that moment, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah returned all tithes he had taken. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, for dinner one has to fill up completely with wood fibers; any coal which does not cause a burn at the beginning will not cause one.

“Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of maẓẓah and bitter herbs? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times. Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.

And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

“They both agree,” etc. Rebbi Samuel and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, because every single drop was moved from its place. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, may one touch the flow? The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagreed; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden; Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, it is permitted. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: They both agree that one may not touch the flow.

Rebbi Abba (bar) Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi disagreed. One said, one spits and crushes; the other said, one does not spit and crush. Where do they differ? If it is not on a mosaic floor. But if there is a mosaic floor he spits and crushes. If he spat and the wind carried it away he is liable because of winnowing; and for anything which is diminished by the wind one is liable because of winnowing.

“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.

“Who rubs it clean.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old, it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles, who makes cheese, who makes butter, who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who sweeps, who sprinkles, is liable because of threshing. He who makes cheese, who makes butter, is liable because of kneading. He who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable because of harvesting. He who squeezes budding olives is liable because of harvesting. Who needs this? Rebbi Eliezer.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable. “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable. “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable. “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

One may make honeywine on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: wine, honey, and pepper. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to mix but forbidden to grind. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Anything for mixing is permitted, for grinding is forbidden. But do we not deal here with mixing? Rebbi Jehudah ben Titus, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is a difference here since it is completion of production. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to break but forbidden to assemble. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: ground garlic. If it needed grinding it is forbidden, but if to mix into fat it is permitted. There, we have stated: “About garlic, unripe grapes, and grain kernels which he squashed when it was still daylight, Rebbi Ismael used to say, he should finish after nightfall, Rebbi Aqiba said, he may not finish.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they disagreed only about profane food. “The Cohanim for heave used to follow Rebbi Ismael.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rebbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rebbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

From a courtyard open to planks one carries from the courtyard to the planks but not from the planks to the courtyard. Therefore two are forbidden. Rebbi Abba said, not only two courtyards but even a single courtyard and in it two houses. They thought to say if they did not make an eruv; therefore if they made an eruv it would be permitted. Rebbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Ḥuna: even if they made an eruv it is forbidden, for the eruv does not make them one. Rav Ḥuna follows his opinion, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. Even if Rav Ḥuna would hold with Rebbi Joḥanan that there it is permitted, here he has to agree that it is forbidden. There, maybe tomorrow the well will run dry and then he would think that perhaps an eruv is efficient for the planks of wells when an eruv is not efficient for the planks of wells.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented,” etc. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented,” etc. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

For a new city one measures from the houses; for an old one one measures from the wall. What is new and what is old? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: If he built houses and afterwards built a wall, that is new; if he built a wall and then built the houses, that is old. Rebbi Zeˋira said, in both cases it is new, and what is old? Anything which had dwellings and they were destroyed. Rebbi Zeˋira follows his opinion, since they disagreed: If he built nine as fore-court and one for dwelling. Rebbi Eleazar said, even if he built the tenth as dwelling it is for dwelling.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Brothers sharing property who were eating at their father’s table,” etc. Where is the main dwelling? Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Samuel disagreed. One said, at the place of their bread, but the other said, at the place of sleeping. We did not know who said what but since Samuel said, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is rabbinically forbidden, he must say, at the place of their bread. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel, “Brothers who were eating”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah is if they are sustained by their father. In any case, are they not partners in what they are eating? Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Samuel explained to me that their father gives them property rights only for what they are eating. Then even if the eruv does not come to them? They treated it as a house where they deposited the eruv. Samuel said, he and his sons and the people of his house make an eruv with one loaf. Does he disagree? There he says, at the place of their bread, and here he says so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it. This is similar to what Rebbi Aḥawa bar Rebbi Ze`ira said, one may make an eruv with half a loaf. But we have stated: “Even if it was baked from a se’ah and was sliced one may not use it for eruv”, and you are saying so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it.

A house where they deposited the eruv. The mother of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had died when Rebbi Yasa said to Rebbi Abbahu, state it, and he stated: The House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Hamnuna said, the house in which the eruv is deposited does not need anything. Rebbi Ḥasdai said, he is made like a partner. Rebbi Hamnuna told him, the words of the rabbis do not let you, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. If you are saying that he is like a partner, he should forbid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the people of the alley deposited the eruv in two places, if because the space was not enough, it is permitted, if in order to split the eruv it is forbidden.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover, to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard. Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt, it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

Six things did Hezekiah, the King of Judea, do; with three they agreed, with three they did not agree. For the following they agreed with him. He smashed the bronze snake and they agreed with him. He dragged his father’s bones on a bier of ropes, and they agreed with him. He hid the table of medicines, and they agreed with him. For the following they disagreed with him. He cut down the Temple doors and they disagreed with him. He enclosed the upper Giḥon spring, and they disagreed with him. He intercalated Nisan in Nisan; and they disagreed with him.

Six things did Hezekiah, the King of Judea, do; with three they agreed, with three they did not agree. For the following they agreed with him. He smashed the bronze snake and they agreed with him. He dragged his father’s bones on a bier of ropes, and they agreed with him. He hid the table of medicines, and they agreed with him. For the following they disagreed with him. He cut down the Temple doors and they disagreed with him. He enclosed the upper Giḥon spring, and they disagreed with him. He intercalated Nisan in Nisan; and they disagreed with him.

Six things did Hezekiah, the King of Judea, do; with three they agreed, with three they did not agree. For the following they agreed with him. He smashed the bronze snake and they agreed with him. He dragged his father’s bones on a bier of ropes, and they agreed with him. He hid the table of medicines, and they agreed with him. For the following they disagreed with him. He cut down the Temple doors and they disagreed with him. He enclosed the upper Giḥon spring, and they disagreed with him. He intercalated Nisan in Nisan; and they disagreed with him.

Six things did Hezekiah, the King of Judea, do; with three they agreed, with three they did not agree. For the following they agreed with him. He smashed the bronze snake and they agreed with him. He dragged his father’s bones on a bier of ropes, and they agreed with him. He hid the table of medicines, and they agreed with him. For the following they disagreed with him. He cut down the Temple doors and they disagreed with him. He enclosed the upper Giḥon spring, and they disagreed with him. He intercalated Nisan in Nisan; and they disagreed with him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said, the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and bar Qappara disagreed. One said, that he could come and eat; the other one said that he could come and pour. And even following him who said, that he could come and eat; on condition that he be within the two thousand cubits of the [Sabbath] domain before nightfall. Rebbi Zeˋira said, there they stated, if he happened to be closer than Modiˋin but his feet were bad, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained, this excludes one who did not refrain. If he happened to be farther than Modiˋin but had a horse at his disposal, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, and he was not on a trip, this excludes this one who was on a trip. If he happened to be closer than Modiˋin before noontime but left before noontime, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained from doing, he who refrains at the time of doing is liable, not at the time of doing is not liable.

“The offspring of a purification offering,” as they disagreed: If the community dedicated a female, and so the prince who dedicated a she-goat, Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is not dedicated and its offspring may be offered; Rebbi Yose said, it is dedicated and its offspring must die. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following: “You cannot speak about the offspring of a purification offering of the community, since the community does not bring a female.” He only said, “you cannot speak about”; therefore if he dedicated it it is dedicated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Is it not Rebbi Simeon’s? As Rebbi Simeon said, a female as elevation offering is dedicated only for its money’s worth.

“And the substitute of a purification offering,” as they disagreed: if he substituted for it on the Thirteenth, Rebbi Zeˋira said, the substitute is brought as a well-being offering; Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the substitute is not brought as a well-being offering.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? May a person think of half an atonement? But it is so: If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups [and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups,] to give from one between the beams, and from one on the gobelins, and from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hila, since they disagreed:

If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is poured into the base? The disagreement between Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as they disagreed: “A purification offering whose blood was received in four cups and from each one he gave one giving, from where that all of them are poured on the base? The verse says, and its blood he shall pour. I could think that if he {only} gave all four givings from one of them, all of them should be poured, the verse says, and all its blood he shall pour. How is this? It is poured on the base, and they are emptied into the canal, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon: From where that even if he gave all four givings from one of them, all of them shall be poured on the base? The verse says, and its blood he shall pour. In Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, all are poured into the base. In Rebbi’s opinion, only the one from which he sprinkled is poured.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: “If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them.

“One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan.” Rebbi Abba said, explain it following him who said, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, as they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects.

Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba when Rebbi Eliezer saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things the Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he hides himself. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said to him, thus they behave among themselves; Rebbi Ze`ira did not greet Rabba since they observe Boys see me and hide themselves; elders rise and stand. He asked him, may one pass by a cursed statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eliezer did well that he did not pass before you. The other thing the Babylonian does, that he does not mention my tradition in my name. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Assi came to him. They said to him, Rabbi, so it happened that it was a synagogue of weavers, about a bolt topped by a lock about which Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose disagreed until they tore a Torah scroll in their rage. Would you think that they tore a Torah scroll? But that a Torah scroll was torn. There was an old man there, Rebbi Yose ben Qisma, who said, I wonder whether this synagogue will not be a place of foreign worship. He came back and asked, where is the colleague? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi came and said to him, it is written, all that the Eternal commanded to His servant Moses so Joshua commanded. When Joshua explained, did he mention every time “so said Moses”? No, he explained and they knew that it was Moses’s teaching. So also Eleazar sits and explains and everybody knows that it is your teaching. He said to them, why do you not know to pacify like our colleague Ben Idi?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are the periods of birth. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: That animals be available for the pilgrims on the holidays. Rebbi Yudan said, that he should not come to do not tarry. Rebbi Yose said, anybody who is late with his ṭevel transgresses. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. Could Ben Azzai decide between his students? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “you come to find us disagreement”?

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “There are four New Year’s Days,” etc. It is written, this month shall be for you the head of the months. For you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for years nor for Sabbatical periods nor for Jubilees nor for planting nor for vegetables. And I could say, for you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for kings nor for holidays. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Or is it only the second in the month? Any place where the second day in the month is intended it is explicit. Or is it only the second in the week? We do not find this count in the Torah. But is it not written, it was evening and it was morning, the second day? One makes no inferences from the Creation of the World. Which one is the second of the months and which one is the second of the years? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana. One said, he started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. But the other one, even if you switch it does not change anything. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: This month is for you, an exclusion. The first it be for you, [an exclusion.] An exclusion after an exclusion is to include for kings and holidays. Could one include for years, or for Sabbatical periods, or for Jubilees, or for planting, or for vegetables? Following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: He started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. And when he says, in the fourth year of his reign, it bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Samuel stated and disagreed: In the third month of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. From here that one counts months from the exodus from Egypt. Not only months, from where years? The Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year. Not only at that time, from where later? In the fortieth year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Not only temporarily, from where for later generations? It was in the 480th year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, etc. After the Temple had been built they started to count from its building: It was at the end of twenty years after Salomon built the two houses. They did not merit to count from its building, they started counting from its destruction: In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, on New Year’s Day, on the tenth of the month, etc. They did not merit to count for themselves, they started counting regnal years, [as it is written,] in year two of Darius; in year three of Cyrus, king of Persia. And I am saying, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. [This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba] and Ben Azzai decides between his students. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, [“since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher,] “you come to find us disagreement”, etc?

“If it was laid on the holiday it may be eaten on the Sabbath, on the Sabbath it may be eaten on the holiday. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, this is the disagreement. The house of Shammai say that it may be eaten, but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten.” Rebbi Ḥanina instructed the Sepphoreans about spontaneous growth of mustard and about the egg following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan came and preached to them following the rabbis here and the rabbis there. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Joṣadaq: Because of these two things did Rebbi Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, why did you bring me this old man, what I am permitting he prohibits, what I am prohibiting he permits. Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Yasa and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

Why did they say, if he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend? The colleagues say, maybe the animal will (be girded, be nursing) [be damaged]. Rebbi Yose said to them, think of it, if it was a large camel! Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is a difference, because he is commanded about the rest of his animals like his own: That your ox and your donkey rest; like you. There are Tannaim who state, one may lean on an animal. There are Tannaim who state, one may not lean on an animal. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one may lean on, if he is healthy; he who said one may not lean on, if he is weak. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and the colleagues disagreed. One said, one may lean on, but the other said, one may not lean on. He who said one may lean on, if he leans a little bit; he who said one may not lean on, if he puts on his full weight. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose did not say anything in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this implies that a healthy person may lean on, a weak one may not lean on.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden [because of dedicating], and we have stated, “one does [not] dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

May one light an idle candle? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. A baraita disagreed with Ḥizqiah: “Do not make fire in all of your dwelling places on Sabbath day. On the Sabbath you may not make fire, but you make fire on a holiday.” If you would say, we deal with cases connected with food, is there not written, only what can be eaten by any breathing being, that alone may be made by you. Therefore what we are dealing with an idle candle. Rebbi Avuna said, it was stated there, the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Naḥum the brother of Rebbi Ila asked before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, do neither forbid nor permit.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Why did the verse join the chapter of the nazir to the chapter of lifting the hands? To teach you that just as the nazir is forbidden wine so lifting the hands is forbidden wine. Then since the nazir is forbidden skins and kernels, also lifting the hands has to be forbidden skins and kernels. Rebbi Jonah said, Joshua the son of the Circumciser and Rebbi Ze`ira disagreed. One infers it from the nazir, the other infers it from Temple service. But we do not know who inferred it from the nazir and who inferred it from Temple service. For him who inferred it from the nazir, since the nazir is forbidden skins and kernels, also lifting the hands has to be forbidden skins and kernels. For him who inferred it from Temple service, since the service is forbidden to bodily defective persons, so lifting the hands has to be forbidden to bodily defective persons.

Rebbi commanded (Abba who was) his speaker <abdan>: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray, should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose drew me to an inn and said to me: Here my father prayed Sabbath {Friday night} prayers on Friday. Rebbi Immi said: Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees but he should not have disagreed since one adds from the profane to the holy time; in addition, donkey drivers come from Arab to Sepphoris and say, Rebbi Ḥanina ben Dosa already did consecrate the Sabbath in his town. But so it has been said, that Rebbi Ḥanina said: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose drew me to an inn and said to me, here my father prayed Saturday night prayers on the Sabbath. But even with that he should not have disagreed, since Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said: If a man went to bed, one does not bother him to get up. Rebbi Ze`ira said, all the time that I followed this rule, I was afraid in the night. You have only what Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight.

Rebbi commanded (Abba who was) his speaker <abdan>: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray, should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose drew me to an inn and said to me: Here my father prayed Sabbath {Friday night} prayers on Friday. Rebbi Immi said: Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees but he should not have disagreed since one adds from the profane to the holy time; in addition, donkey drivers come from Arab to Sepphoris and say, Rebbi Ḥanina ben Dosa already did consecrate the Sabbath in his town. But so it has been said, that Rebbi Ḥanina said: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose drew me to an inn and said to me, here my father prayed Saturday night prayers on the Sabbath. But even with that he should not have disagreed, since Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said: If a man went to bed, one does not bother him to get up. Rebbi Ze`ira said, all the time that I followed this rule, I was afraid in the night. You have only what Rebbi commanded his speaker Abdan: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba commanded his speaker: Proclaim before them that he who wants to pray should pray evening prayers as long as it is still daylight.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments. But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Perita objected before Rebbi Ze`ira, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day. Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked before Rebbi Jonah; was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses?

It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, the day of the destruction of the Temple was after the end of the Sabbath, at the end of a Sabbatical year, during the watch of Yehoyariv, on the Ninth of Av. And so it happened the second time. Both times the Levites were standing on the platform and singing, He turned on them their wrongs, in their malice he eradicates them, eradicates them the Eternal, our God. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan; may one sing without libations? He said to him, let us hear from what was stated: “both times the Levites were standing on the platform and singing, He turned on them their wrongs, etc.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may sing without libations. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not sing without libations. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Was it not stated, “both times the Levites were standing on the platform and singing, He turned on them their wrongs”? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him, what do you conclude from this? He said to him, since if there were libations it would have been time for the song. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the daily song. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, yesterday’s song.

“The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment. What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaim about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Rebbi Tarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there can be no whipping connected to extirpation, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no whipping in a case involving extirpation. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sons of Noah brought well-being offerings. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the Sons of Noah brought elevation offerings. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, and Abel also brought from the firstlings of his sheep and of their excellence. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? From their luxurious ones. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, he sent the young men of Israel and they offered elevation offerings, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Entire in their bodies, without stripping and partitioning. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: [Is it not written, Jethro, Moses’s in-law, took elevation and well-being offerings for God?] What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Following him who said that Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Jehudah the great one and Rebbi Yannai disagreed. One said, Jethro came before the giving of the Torah; but the other one said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. We did not know who said what. Let us hear from the following: Jethro, the priest of Midyan, Moses’s in-law, heard. What did he hear? Ḥizqiah said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. Rebbi Joshua said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. [Rebbi Levi said, he heard the war of Amaleq.] The Great Jehudah said, he heard the giving of the Torah. Therefore he must be the one who said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the following supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Awake North, and come South. Awake North refers to the elevation sacrifice which is slaughtered in the North. What means “awake”? What was sleeping and awoke. And come South refers to well-being sacrifices which are slaughtered in the South. What means “come”? Something new. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? When the diasporas in the North awake and build the Temple in the South. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: also the following verse supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is the teaching about the elevation sacrifice. This is the elevation sacrifice which the Sons of Noah were sacrificing. When he comes to well-being sacrifice he says, this is the teaching about the well-being sacrifice. It is not written “which one brought” but shall bring from now on..

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments [But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Protos objected before Rebbi Jonah, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day.] Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked, was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses. Should there not be 23? Three for ten, three for ten, and one three.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions shall not be unimportant in your eyes, since leaning on is only a meritorious act and the fathers of the world disagreed about it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one has to press down with all his weight. If it were not so we would have to say that it is forbidden to touch an animal on the Sabbath.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, she may not use lime because it disfigures her.” Two Amoraim, Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But the other says, they disagreed about lime which she removes after the holiday. But lime which she removes during the holiday everybody agrees that it is permitted. We did not know who said what. From what R. Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jehudah is consistent: just as Rebbi Jehudah said there, temporary pain is pain, so he says here, temporary disfiguration is disfiguration. This implies that they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, she may not use lime because it disfigures her.” Two Amoraim, Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But the other says, they disagreed about lime which she removes after the holiday. But lime which she removes during the holiday everybody agrees that it is permitted. We did not know who said what. From what R. Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jehudah is consistent: just as Rebbi Jehudah said there, temporary pain is pain, so he says here, temporary disfiguration is disfiguration. This implies that they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, she may not use lime because it disfigures her.” Two Amoraim, Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But the other says, they disagreed about lime which she removes after the holiday. But lime which she removes during the holiday everybody agrees that it is permitted. We did not know who said what. From what R. Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jehudah is consistent: just as Rebbi Jehudah said there, temporary pain is pain, so he says here, temporary disfiguration is disfiguration. This implies that they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here, does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here is even about a brother’s widow.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

Rebbi Eleazar said, even though the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai disagreed about co-wives, they agree that the child is not a bastard, since a bastard is only from a woman which is forbidden to [a man] by an incest prohibition and one is subject to extirpation for [sinning with] her. Rebbi Tarphon said, I would love to have a daughter’s co-wife to marry her into priesthood. They asked Rebbi Joshua, what are children of a daughter’s co-wife? He said to them, you bring my head between two large mountains, between the words of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel, that they should smash my brain. But I testify about the family ‘Anubai from Bet Ṣeba‘im and the family Neqipai from Bet Meqošeš that they were sons of co-wives and their grandchildren were High Priests officiating on top of the altar.

“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

HALAKHAH: “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters,” etc. Ulla bar Ismael said, so explained Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah: Rebbi Simeon frees the second one from ḥalîṣah and levirate. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the group asked, would anybody think that a man could acquire two sisters together? Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana and disagreed: Why does Rebbi Simeon free the second one from ḥalîṣah and levirate? He said to him, because nobody thinks that a man could acquire two sisters together. There they said, the words of Rebbi Simeon imply that no candidacy can come after another candidacy. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he sinned and had intercourse. What is the difference? If somebody from the market gave qiddushin to the second sister. Following the rabbis, perfect qiddushin. Following Rebbi Eleazar, suspended qiddushin. When he has intercourse with the first, the qiddushin become valid for the second. If he had intercourse with the second, following the rabbis it is an incestuous act. Following Rebbi Eleazar, it is not an incestuous act. If the first one died, following the rabbis the second is permitted to him.

“If they are unable to marry in Israel they disable.” These are: “A child of nine years and one day, an Ammonite, Moabite, or Egyptian proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite, Samaritan, and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of an Israel, a Cohen, or a Levite, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.” In what do they differ? Rebbi Joḥanan says, an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte is between them. For him who says, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified, here since his descendant would be disqualified, his intercourse disqualifies. For him who says, if you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow, here since you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of [the rabbis], Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. Rebbi Zakkai: Rebbi Alexander sent to ask [about] the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte and the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian. Rebbi Yose said to him, did you not hear that Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of the rabbis, Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. And everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified. Do we not need it when her mother was from Israel? That you should not say that since her mother was desecrated so her daughter was desecrated. In addition, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed, the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, they disagree about the old women: Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified.