disagrees

Who disagrees? Rebbi Ḥanina the Colleague of the Rabbis asked: Just as you say in the evening that it is night if three stars are visible even though the sun is in the middle of the sky it is night, so you must say the same thing in the morning. Rebbi Abba said: It is written (Gen. 19:23): “The sun went out over the earth and Lot came to Zoar.” And it is written (Lev. 22:7): “The sun will come and he shall be pure.” He brackets going out and coming. Since coming means that it is hidden from the creatures so also its coming out when it will be ascertained by the creatures. Rebbi Abba said, it is written (Gen. 44:3): “In the morning it was light.” The Torah called the light morning. Rebbi Ismael stated: (Ex. 12:10) “In the morning, in the morning,” to give a domain to the very early morning.

The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi disagrees since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi read psalms afterwards. But have we not stated: One does not say words after Emet Weyaẓiv? He explains that as relating to Emet Weyaẓiv of the morning prayers, since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering, immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, immediately after redemption comes prayer. Immediately after leaning comes slaughtering: “He shall lean … he shall slaughter” (Lev. 1:4–5). Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.” Immediately after redemption comes prayer, (Ps. 19:15) “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill” and it is written after that (Ps. 20:2) “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: For anyone who immediately slaughters after leaning, no disqualification will appear regarding his sacrifice. For anyone who immediately pronounces the benediction after washing his hands, Satan will not find anything to accuse about at that meal. For anyone who immediately prays after mentioning redemption, Satan will not find anything to accuse him of the entire day. Rebbi Zeïra said, I am used to immediately pray after mentioning redemption and I was conscripted to forced labor, to bring myrrh to the Palace. They said to him: our teacher, that is an honor. There are people who pay money to see the inside of the Palace. Rebbi Immi said: Anyone who does not immediately pray after mentioning redemption, whom is he to be likened to? To an acquaintance of the king who comes from afar to the king’s door. When the king comes to see what he wants, he finds that the person left. Hence, the king also leaves.

Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the Sages and acts upon his opinion? Did not Rebbi Meïr disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion, did not Rebbi Aqiba disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion?

We have stated: Only that one should not bow down too much. Rebbi Jeremiah said: On condition that one should not behave like that large lizard, but (Ps. 35:10) “All my bones should say, o Eternal, who is like You?” The word of Ḥanan bar Abba disagrees since Ḥanan bar Abba said to the colleagues: I shall tell you one of the good things that I saw Rav do and, when I told it before Samuel, he got up and kissed me on my mouth. At “praised are You”, he bows down. When he comes to mention Hashem, he straightens up. Samuel said: I shall give the reason (Ps. 35:10): “The Eternal straightens the bent ones.” Rebbi Ammi said: It is not reasonable, but (Mal. 2:5): “Before My Name he is low.” Rebbi Abun said: If it were written “at My Name he is low” then you would be right, but it is written “before My Name he is low”, before he mentions Hashem he is low.

There they say one should not start wayyomer but if one did start he has to finish. The rabbis here say one starts but does not finish. The Mishnah disagrees with the rabbis here: “One must mention the Exodus in the night.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav: We thank You that You took us out of Egypt and redeemed us from the house of slavery to give thanks to Your Name. A baraita disagrees with the rabbis there: Wayyomer is used only during daytime. The entire section of wayyomer is used only during daytime.

There they say one should not start wayyomer but if one did start he has to finish. The rabbis here say one starts but does not finish. The Mishnah disagrees with the rabbis here: “One must mention the Exodus in the night.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav: We thank You that You took us out of Egypt and redeemed us from the house of slavery to give thanks to Your Name. A baraita disagrees with the rabbis there: Wayyomer is used only during daytime. The entire section of wayyomer is used only during daytime.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Why did they say, a man puts on tefillin, recites the Shema‘ and prays? So that he first should accept upon himself the Kingdom of Heaven completely. Rav said, one reads the Shema‘, puts on tefillin, and prays. A baraita of Rav himself disagrees with him: “If somebody was occupied with a dead person in his grave and the time for the recital of Shema‘ arrived, he should move to a pure place, put on tefillin, recite the Shema‘, and pray”. Does not the Mishnah support Rav: “In order that one should accept the Kingdom of Heaven before he accepts the yoke of the commandments”?

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of (Rebbi) Abba [bar Jeremiah]: A person should not enter a urinal with his books or tefillin in his hands. Rebbi Yoḥanan, when he had a book in his hand he gave it to somebody else. When his tefillin were on him, he stood in them. A baraita disagrees with Abba bar Jeremiah: A man may enter a urinal with his books or tefillin in his hand. Rebbi Zeïra said: Abba bar Jeremiah refers to one case where he can wear them, and to another case where he cannot wear them. For if he cannot perform a mitzwah with them, why should he degrade them?

The word of Ḥanan bar Abba disagrees since Ḥanan bar Abba said to the colleagues: I shall tell you one of the good things that I saw Rav do and, when I told it before Samuel he got up and kissed me on my mouth. At “praised are You”, he bows down. When he comes to mention Hashem, he straightens up. Samuel said: I shall give the reason (Ps. 35:10): “The Lord straightens the bent ones.” Rebbi Ammi said: It is not reasonable, but (Mal. 2:5): “Before My Name he is low.” Rebbi Abun said: If it were written “at My Name he is low” then you would be right, but it is written “before My Name he is low”, before he mentions Hashem he is low.

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 Jonah in the name of Rav: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Where does he say it? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day. Rebbi Mani said: I, who did not check whether one follows Rav Jeremiah or Rebbi Yannai the son of Rebbi Ismael, went to the study hall and I heard: “Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Rebbi Yose objected that a baraitha disagrees: Every day one prays eighteen benedictions, including the night after Sabbath and the nights after Yom Kippur and after Public Fasts.” Since Rebbi Yose said, this baraita disagrees, it contradicts the statement: between “Redeemer of Israel” and “Healer of the sick.”

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Where does he say it? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day. Rebbi Mani said: I, who did not check whether one follows Rav Jeremiah or Rebbi Yannai the son of Rebbi Ismael, went to the study hall and I heard: “Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Rebbi Yose objected that a baraitha disagrees: Every day one prays eighteen benedictions, including the night after Sabbath and the nights after Yom Kippur and after Public Fasts.” Since Rebbi Yose said, this baraita disagrees, it contradicts the statement: between “Redeemer of Israel” and “Healer of the sick.”

The words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon the pious: For shepherds and field guards. Hence, the Mishnah spoke only for shepherds and field guards; therefore, everybody else is obliged. The words of Rebbi Yoḥanan agree since Rebbi Yoḥanan said: I saw Rebbi Yannai standing in the market of Sepphoris praying; then he walked four cubits and prayed Musaph. Is there no organized community in Sepphoris? You infer from this three conclusions. You infer that the markets of Sepphoris have the status of Sepphoris. You infer that one disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah who spoke in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. You infer that a person may pray, walk four cubits, and then pray Musaph. Rebbi Abba said, not necessarily four cubits but even if he waited the time necessary to walk four cubits.

Young palm shoots. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: He recites on it “Creator of the fruit of the tree.” Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Saul stated, “By Whose word everything was created.” Rebbi Joshua stated: “Creator of kinds of grasses.” The baraita of Rebbi Oshaiah disagrees: “The following are the kinds of grasses: artichoke, ḥalimah, demua, and lycium.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Rebbi Yehudah and the rabbis disagree only when he intended afterwards to eat bread, but if he did not intend to eat bread afterwards, everybody agrees that if among them one is of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction. Rebbi Abba said, he has to recite a benediction at the end. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba disagrees with Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Rebbi Yehudah and the rabbis disagree only when he intended afterwards to eat bread, but if he did not intend to eat bread afterwards everybody agrees that if among them is one of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction; but Rebbi Abba said, he has to recite a benediction at the end. If he did not recite a benediction at the end it became an accessory and we have stated there (Mishna 7): “In every situation where there is a main course and side dishes, one recites the benediction for the main course and thereby frees the side dishes.”

Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Huna, Rav, in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Bread that comes kisnīn needs a benediction before and after. Rebbi Ammi said that Rebbi Yoḥanan disagrees. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, in what does he disagree? When one ate from the same food during the meal? He said to him, even if one did not eat from the same kind during the meal. Rav Ḥaggai came in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even if one did not eat from the same kind during the meal.

Three who ate together and one wants to leave, Rav said he should recite the first benediction, then he may leave. What is the first benediction? In the Yeshivah of Rav they said, the benediction of invitation. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Jeremiah: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥanan in the name of Rav: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rav Sheshet objected, but a baraita disagrees: “Two, three are obliged to recite Grace.” If you want to say the benediction of invitation is the first one, one should state “four.” They found stated “four.” If you want to say this is “He Who feeds all”, it is difficult. If you want to say that it is “He Who is good and does good”, you cannot do that, there is a difference because Rav Huna said that “He Who is good and does good” was fixed after permission was received to bury the slain of Betar, “He Who is good” because the dead did not decompose and “He Who does good” that they could be buried. Rav Huna said, you may explain it following Rebbi Ismael since Rebbi Ismael said, “He Who is good and does good” is an obligation from the Torah as it is written (Deut.8:10): You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise, that is the benediction of invitation; the Eternal, your God, that is “He Who feeds all”; for the Land, that is the benediction over the Land; the good one, that is the benediction “builder of Jerusalem” [and so it says (Deut. 3:25) “this good mountain and the Lebanon”]; that He gave you, that is “He Who is good and does good”.

“One does not recite a benediction over wine unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer that one has to add a small amount of water into the cup used for Grace. The rabbis do so for the Qiddush cup. The statement of Rebbi Yose disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah tasted it and restored it. If you imply that it was mixed, did we not formulate: He who drinks mixed drinks that were standing through the night, his blood is on his head. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, that is only if it was standing in metal vessels.

Rebbi Zeïra went up to Rebbi Abbahu in Caesarea. When he met him he said: Come to eat. He [R. Abbahu] gave him a loaf to break and told him: Take it and recite the benediction. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The householder knows best the qualities of his loaf. After they had eaten, he [R. Abbahu] said to him: Start and recite Grace. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The rabbi knows Rav Huna who is a great man and he used to say that he who starts is the one who finishes. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna, as it was stated: “The order of washing of the hands. Up to five persons, one starts with the most important personality. More than that, one starts with the least important one. In the middle of the meal one starts with the most important one. After the meal one starts with him who will recite Grace.” Does that not mean that he may prepare himself for reciting Grace? If you say that the one who starts is the one who finishes, he already is prepared! Rebbi Isaac said, explain it for those who come separately and do not know who will recite Grace.

A Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated: “Give this divorce document to my wife …,” because he may receive the divorce document of his minor daughter. “And the document of manumission to my slave …,” since he may receive his own document of manumission. But did we not state: “Receive this divorce document for my wife or bring this divorce document to my wife; if he wants to change his mind … he may not do so.” Is a slave empowered to bring a divorce document? Explain it by different cases.

The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there: “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rebbi Aqiba entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich. And even if you say, after he became rich, when he was an administrator, and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor.

Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: Any olive that you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed it over and forgot it, it is forgotten. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaia: A single ear on the field to be harvested and its head reaches to the grain. Can you not stretch out your hand and take a single ear on the harvested field? Rebbi Illai in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: They said that about the second row.

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.

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If they were kept in storage they are obligated.” Did they not essentially come from abandoned property? He explains it, if most people keep them in storage. Come and see, if most people keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are obligated, be it demay or certain. If most people do not keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are free, be it demay or certain. Half and half you cannot consider since we have stated: “Half and half is demay.” Rebbi Zeïra said, not only the easy ones for demay but even demay itself.

Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others. Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspected to eat but not to serve to others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree. If you say that ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others, what is the difference between start and end? As we have stated: “He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy except for one thing cannot be accepted; he who is suspect in one thing is suspect in everything. Rebbi Jehudah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rebbi Joḥanan says, they can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives.” He explains it up to olive-sized bits.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These Cohanim and Levites, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These Cohanim and Levites, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody marries giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts’, water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer, she is married, even if the groom is Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen.

HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession.

Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, a person can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “If a vessel was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave of the tithe tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that.

Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All of these form pairs. Has that been said for the entire Chapter, or only for this Halakhah? From what Rav said, that the five vegetables with which one may satisfy one’s obligation at Passover time can all be sown in one vegetable bed, and one says that the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, it follows that it has been said for the entire Chapter. Rav Abba in the name of Rav: All have been stated in pairs. The reasoning of Rav is inverted; there he says that they all constitute one kind, and here, he says so? No, Rav did not say that they all constitute one kind, but rather that they all are kinds of vegetables that may be sown in one vegetable bed.

Salman the Levite, the brother of Zavdi the Levite, in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: All statements are pair by pair. Rav said, all are one kind. A baraitha disagrees with Rav, for we have stated: also the baka-bush. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not also state oregano?

One sowed two kinds in a valley, two kinds in a dry spot, or two kinds that he separated by a fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is free from sanction, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows on the sea, on a stone, on a rock, on hard stones cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that one who sows with the intention of erecting a fence cannot be sanctioned. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath it must come to rest. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim.” He explains it, if they are put inside a six [hand-breadths] by six [hand-breadths] spot, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty unless there is a bare spot of six by six inside a grain field or enclosed by a fence.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody has slightly more than a bet rova‘, then in that excess he may sow anything he likes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he may sow in it only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he had a bet rova‘ and a half, he may sow half a bet rova‘ from either side and the last half bet rova‘ is valid for both sides. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ If he had fields, one sown with wheat and the other sown with barley, he may bring straw in between and sow one side with wheat and the other with barley because the wheat looks like the end of the wheat field, and the barley like the end of the barley field.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with that? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: “Even if wheat after wheat comes close to barley, barley after barley comes close to wheat, it is permitted.” For wheat after wheat only comes close to barley (wheat), barley after barley comes close to (barley) [wheat], but if only one wheat stalk is absorbed into the barley, or one stalk of barley is absorbed into the wheat, then that is forbidden.

It was stated: “One may sow a row of mustard or saffron in the middle of one’s field on condition to make the row long, a length of 10.5 cubits the entire width.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that applies only to a small field, not to a large one. What is large and what is small? If there is between the two ends a bet rova‘, that is large, otherwise it is small. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, for Rebbi Joḥanan said that a vertex that comes from a dry spot is forbidden? There it is for grain, here for vegetables. Even though Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees for grain, he will agree here with respect to vegetables.

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks about distances from three to four hand-breadths. Less than three is close up, up to four one has to complete, four is easy for it. How far? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to four cubits. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to six cubits. Rebbi Mana said: I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Hoshiah bar Shammai in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: If there were two papyri, it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, a statement disagrees: If he usually oversteps, it is forbidden. It was stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he usually oversteps between lattices, it is treated as a single lattice.

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ ‘Guard yourself’ means a prohibition. And it is written: There you should present, there you should perform.” Because that is written, otherwise I would have said it is a positive commandment. But that you should not say as you say regarding the Sabbath that if somebody dug a hole, made a ditch, and dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense, so similarly, if somebody slaughtered, sprinkled the blood, and presented he should be guilty only of one offense. Therefore, it is necessary to say that he is guilty for each action separately.

“ The palm pith is wood in every respect except that it may be bought with tithe money. Palm spathe used as food is free from tithes.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi explained in the study house: Palm pith is not subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. But Rebbi Yose commanded about those who were asking; they said that it was said from his part. He made them say that Rebbi Yose told them, a baraita disagrees with Rebbi Judah ben Pazi and supports us, as it was stated: “One may not cook unripe figs of the Sabbatical year but it is permitted for the late ones because that is their treatment.”

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others fulfill his written instructions? They upheld it, if he is illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or he told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the document] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, here also it is invalid. Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. (Deut. 22:19) “And they shall fine him”, money; (Deut. 22:18) “they shall punish him,” flogging. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech. Since one cannot transfer this feature, one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If he [eats] fat intentionally but is in error about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Saplings of heave that had become impure he may plant and make them heave but if they were heave from before they already were pushed aside. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Water that became impure is made to touch and may be used as water for Tabernacles but if it was water for Tabernacles from before it already is pushed aside. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Figs and grapes that had become impure one may squeeze and make them heave but if they were heave from before they already were pushed aside. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one squeezes less than the volume of olives and his wine is good even for libations. They said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees. Both about leniency and restriction? If you say about leniency, this is understandable. If you say about restriction, did we not state: “Until he removes what is edible?”

May one roast two spits together in one oven, one of kosher meat and one of carcass meat? Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, it is forbidden. Samuel said in the name of Levi, it is permitted. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “One may not roast two Passover sacrifices together in one oven because they could be mixed up.” They said only, because they could be mixed up; therefore, not if they could not be mixed up.

“If he was eating when night fell Friday evening or when he gave it to another person it did not become ṭevel.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, when it was put on pitta bread or into a bowl, but when it was in a flask it became ṭevel. Rebbi Yose said, even in a flask it did not become ṭevel. Rebbi Jeremiah said to him, does not the Sabbath create ṭevel? He answered him, does not buying create ṭevel? He retorted, following what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said a person may stand near the muqẓeh on a Friday of a Sabbatical year and say, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” He mentioned only the Sabbatical year; that exludes the other years of the Sabbatical cycle. How does Rebbi Jeremiah argue about this? You cannot return it to its place as muqẓeh, therefore it creates ṭevel. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi (Jeremiah): There are no snacks on the Sabbath. He explains it, anything that has muqẓeh. In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, whether it has muqẓeh or does not have muqẓeh.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: So did Rebbi Jehudah disprove Rebbi Meїr[’s argument]: Do you not concede to me that one who gives to his son is free? What is the difference between gathering and giving to his son or gathering and giving to another person? Rebbi Yudan asked: What did you see to say ‘if he gathers and delivers,’ can we not say ‘if he gathers and eats’? Rebbi Mana said, there cannot be “if he gathers and eats”, only “if he gathers and delivers,” because of that rose garden. Can you say the rose garden [is a case of] gathering and eating? No, gathering and delivering! There also, he gathers and delivers because he would say to him, if you enter you will damage its roses! A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Mana’s argument: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the orchard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description.’ ”

HALAKHAH: Rav Hamnuna said, if a child covered a harvesting basket for transport to the market, it became ṭevel; in any situation in which the intent of an adult has an effect, the action of a minor has an effect. Rebbi Zeïra asked: Since the intent of an adult does not have an effect until he opens on the market, the action of a minor should not have an effect until he opens on the market! The Mishnah disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: “If children hid figs for the Sabbath and he forgot to tithe them they may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they are tithed.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent!

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is by proportion.” He explains it, up to the size of olives. “What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together in proportion.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: The Mishnah comes up so: What is mixed and what is taken out in fists full in proprtion.

This disagrees with Nukai. Nukai was community servant in Magdala of the dyers. Every Sabbath eve, after preparing his candles, he went up, rested in the Temple, and went down to light them. Some say, he was the Torah reader. Every Sabbath eve he went up, prepared home.

The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated: “Give this divorce document to my wife,” because he may receive the divorce document of his minor daughter. “And the document of manumission to my slave,” since he may receive his own document of manumission. But did we not state: “Receive this divorce document for my wife or bring this divorce document to my wife; if he wants to change his mind … he may do so.” Is a slave empowered to bring a divorce document? Explain it by different cases contained in the Mishnah.

A Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there: “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rebbi Aqiba entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich. And even if you say, after he became rich, when he was an administrator, and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab separately and made them leavened, and another four qab separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened.] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila even though he disagrees with him.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him (Lev. 23:14): “Until that day proper,” which teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” And we have stated: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan [ben Zakkai] instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Johanan: “Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah!” He explains it for Bismarcks made on the fire: One does not fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked by the sun; one may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on the fire. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He explains it if the fire extends to the sides.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “For heave and First Fruits one is liable to penalty of death.” He explains it, for Cohanim. But did we not state: “fifth”? Is there a fifth for Cohanim? He explains that the Mishnah is case by case. The first clause for Cohanim, the last for Israel. Does the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan: “They are forbidden to lay persons”? He explains it, less than a legal quantity.

In all these cases we stated that Rebbi Simeon disagrees. For the declaration Rebbi Simeon does not disagree. The declaration is the reading; there, Rebbi Simeon does not disagree since it is written (Deut. 26:5): “You should formally declare.”

“Nor read by candlelight”. Samuel said, they stated that only for a single person. Therefore for two, who can hinder one another, it is permitted. Samuel’s baraita disagrees with him: “Both a light which he can turn as one which he cannot turn.” Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even many. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar even if it is very high, even if it is in (one) house, even if it is on a look-out.

“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.

There, we have stated: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose he should be free from paying restitution, from the following: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money.

There, they say, the sun is permitted, a derivative of the sun is forbidden. The rabbis here say, both the sun and derivatives of the sun are permitted. Our Mishnah disagrees with the rabbis here: “One should not bury it in dust of roads that it should be roasted.” There is a difference, because he makes a groove. If it had said “flour” it would have been correct. A baraita disagrees with the rabbis there, as it was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one soft-boils eggs on a boiling hot whitewashed roof but one does not soft-boil eggs in boiling hot dust.” What do the rabbis there do with this? They explain that they disagree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. In the opinion of the rabbis there, “what the people of Tiberias did.” In the opinion of the rabbis here the Mishnah was finished. “As to what the people of Tiberias did.”

There, they say, the sun is permitted, a derivative of the sun is forbidden. The rabbis here say, both the sun and derivatives of the sun are permitted. Our Mishnah disagrees with the rabbis here: “One should not bury it in dust of roads that it should be roasted.” There is a difference, because he makes a groove. If it had said “flour” it would have been correct. A baraita disagrees with the rabbis there, as it was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one soft-boils eggs on a boiling hot whitewashed roof but one does not soft-boil eggs in boiling hot dust.” What do the rabbis there do with this? They explain that they disagree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. In the opinion of the rabbis there, “what the people of Tiberias did.” In the opinion of the rabbis here the Mishnah was finished. “As to what the people of Tiberias did.”

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated there: “Its undercarriage, if it can be separated it is not connected to it, will not be measured with it, does not protect in a tent with a corpse; one may not drag it on the Sabbath if it contains coins.” And it was stated for this, if there were coins on it but they fell off, it may be dragged. Rav Sheshet said, this is Rebbi Sineon’s since Rebbi Simeon said, “if it burned out it is permitted to move it.” They said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he forgot. You cannot do this, as we have stated there: “if it cannot be separated it is connected to it, will be measured with it, does protect in a tent with a corpse; one may drag it on the Sabbath even though it contains coins.” Can you say about this, it is according to everybody, if he forgot?

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rebbi Abba in the name of (Rebbi) [Rav] Ḥiyya bar Ashi: Rav explained this about one who forgot. Also from the sequel, “if it was between amphoras he lifts it, tilts it on its side and it falls down.” This also Rav explained about one who forgot.

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?

It was stated: One does not store away in hot ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that it is permitted to store away in cold ashes. As the following: Rebbi Yannai’s daughter was serving her father and brought him hot dishes. He asked her, how was this made? She told him, (with a spade and) [it was hidden in] olive cake. He said to her, you should not do this, but (with a spade) [hide it] in a box and put the box on the olive cake. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi Ḥanina disagrees with this. Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Olive cake at the bottom and straw on both sides is forbidden, and Rebbi Yannai agrees.

HALAKHAH: “Boys go out with knots,” knots of madder. “And princes with bells.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, with bells around their necks. What means “and so may everybody”? Whether children of the poor or children of the rich. Rebbi Ila said, with bells on his clothing. What means “and so may everybody”? Whether adult or child. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Zeˋira: A person may go out with bells on his clothing but he may not go out with bells around his neck. But here about adults and there about the young.

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed fish, if for their body he is not liable, but to produce fish sauce he is liable. Rav said, if one compressed pickles, if for their body it is permitted, for their fluid it is forbidden. Preserves both for their body or their fluid is forbidden. Samuel said, both for pickles and for preserves, both for their body or their fluid it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Mana asked him, why? Because one said forbidden and permitted but the other said liable and not liable.

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects (normally) on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another] place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes] at the end.

HALAKHAH: 2. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah is about a basket full of green melon and squash, where part of the food is inside and part outside. But a basket full of grain, when he took out in the volume of a dried fig he is liable. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s statement disagrees, as Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A crocheted cloth part of which was inside and part outside, if he took from one side and put it down on the other he is not liable. If he lifted it, only if he lifted it entirely at the same time.

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.

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.

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.

Rebbi Eleazar said, a person can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “If a vessel was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave [of the tithe] tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that. What is to be done? “From before I shall separate it.” Think about it, if it was pure heave, “from before I shall eat it.” Think about it, if it was impure heave, “from before I shall deposit it in a corner.”

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: He explained this about one who forgot. A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: He explained this about one who forgot. A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?