disagrees

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

If two beams are one on top of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. It was found stated that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s argument and disagrees with him. He follows his fathers argument since he says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower. He disagrees with him since he says, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. If you would say that he follows his father’s opinion it could be arbitrarily high. Rebbi Yose, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rebbi Yudan; Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: Only if the upper one be within three hand-breadths of the lower one.

If two beams are one on top of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. It was found stated that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s argument and disagrees with him. He follows his fathers argument since he says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower. He disagrees with him since he says, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. If you would say that he follows his father’s opinion it could be arbitrarily high. Rebbi Yose, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rebbi Yudan; Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: Only if the upper one be within three hand-breadths of the lower one.

HALAKHAH: “One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rebbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for him who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for him who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it would slip off, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it would slip off, would he notice? Rebbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rebbi Aḥa. (They said to him) [He said to them], it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice in case it slipped off you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice in case it slipped off not so much more? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father and disagrees with his father. The argument of his father, about an individual more than two bet se’ah. And disagrees with his father, about a caravan less than two bet se’ah Did we not hear that Rebbi Jehudah said, an individual for more than two bet se’ah needs woof and warp? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Aḥa the Tanna, Rebbi Ḥanin, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Sheshet: Just as they differ here so they are differing about kilaim. And in Kilaim not even if it is a bet rova?

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father and disagrees with his father. The argument of his father, about an individual more than two bet se’ah. And disagrees with his father, about a caravan less than two bet se’ah Did we not hear that Rebbi Jehudah said, an individual for more than two bet se’ah needs woof and warp? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Aḥa the Tanna, Rebbi Ḥanin, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Sheshet: Just as they differ here so they are differing about kilaim. And in Kilaim not even if it is a bet rova?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it only contains a cistern,” etc. It was stated, “Rebbi Eliezer says, if its length exceeds its width even by one cubit one may not carry there.” This disagrees with R. Jonathan. “Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width one carries in there,” this agrees with Rebbi Jonathan. We also have stated, “Kilaim in a quarter. Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If they were two, and some of the cubits of one,” etc. Even though Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos disagrees with the rabbis about the cubits he agrees with them here about the environs of towns.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥinena: If the roof of the cave was 4’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits, on top of a wall it is unlimited. If the roof of the cave was 6’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits by the help of nibariot. What about tops of roofs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Aeneas bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Aḥa brings it in the name of Samuel. On top of the roofs one carries even a kor, even two kor. Rebbi Meïr said, one carries up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the word of Rav disagrees with him, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city form a single domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. It is the same for tops of roofs and tops of ships.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “In a courtyard where one dweller forgot to make an eruv,” etc. “But theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. May this be repeated cyclically? The students of Rav in the name of Rav: it may be repeated cyclically. Samuel said, it may not be repeated cyclically. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. But did we not state: “If they ceded their rights to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden”? He explains it that the Mishnah treats different cases.

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.

It is obvious that an eruv needs a house. Should a participation need a house? (Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley.) The word of Rav implies that an eruv needs a house. The word of Samuel implies that participation needs a house. A baraita of Samuel disagrees with him: Participation may be put into the porter’s lodge. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley.

The following is obvious. If both of them are by a door, both of them are forbidden the house (in which are) [between] two courtyards. For one of them by throwing and for one by lowering. Samuel says, lowering is permitted since it is ordinary but throwing is forbidden since it is not ordinary. Rav said, it did not do anything. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “anything higher than ten hand-breadths belongs to the balcony, less than this to the courtyard.” The Mishnah refers to the case that neither one uses by throwing nor by lowering; within three hand-breadths of the upper one which is more than ten hand-breadths from the lower one. Where do Rav and Samuel disagree? If it is equal.

The following is obvious: If it is ten deep but not four wide one may move and fill. If it was four wide but not ten deep it is obvious that one may move. May one fill? Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, it is forbidden. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Mana: “They told him, because it did not have the measure.” It was neither ten deep nor four wide. But if it had been ten deep but not four wide it would have been forbidden. Even if it is four wide but not ten deep it is permitted. The case happened as it happened.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia said it only for Lake Genezareth since mountains surround it. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, if one threw from a circular road into public domain or from public domain into it? He said to him, in your opinion a public domain does not exist. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no public domain unless it be open from one end of the world to the other. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted since he said, there is no public domain in this world, only in the future as it is written, every valley will be lifted. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “What is a private domain? The paths of Bet-Gilgul. Private domain regarding the Sabbat but public domain for impurity.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose: This you are saying if they are using the hole. But if they are using the outside it is permitted. It was stated thus: If three balconies are one above the other it is forbidden to pass from the upper one to the lower one passing by the middle one, but one may pass from the courtyard to the roof without worry. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac says, this you mean from the inside but from the outside it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, both inside and outside are forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Zeˋira: “One lowers a pot with meat from a ledge which is ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide. If a window of four hand-breadths was in between it is forbidden since one does not pass from one domain to another through a [third] domain.” What does Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac do with this? He explains it (if captive) [if equal].

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Courtyard and porch combine for four cubits.” He explains it if they are level. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The terrace, the roof, and the courtyard combine for four cubits. Still it is if they are level. You should know that it is so since it was stated: The house, the upper floor, the courtyard, and the porch do not combine. Is that not because they are not level?

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Courtyard and porch combine for four cubits.” He explains it if they are level. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The terrace, the roof, and the courtyard combine for four cubits. Still it is if they are level. You should know that it is so since it was stated: The house, the upper floor, the courtyard, and the porch do not combine. Is that not because they are not level?

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob both said the same. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, on the Sabbath one may pour water into a sewer which is covered for four cubits in the public domain, but the Sages are saying, even from a roof or a courtyard 100 cubits [wide] one may not pour into the sewer.” Rebbi Meïr as it was stated: In large cities one may pour water into flows even though they are perforated, the words of Rebbi Meïr. And it was stated thus, if it was a drainpipe it is permitted; in the rainy season it is permitted; streaming spouts are forbidden and Bar Qappara stated, if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. This disagrees with Rav and he cannot explain it, since Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room.

May one carry in all of it? Samuel said, he carries in all of it. Rav said, he only carries within four cubits. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” One understands that of the large one four cubits are permitted. But of the small one is forbidden four cubits? Is anything forbidden in four cubits? Do not Rav and Samuel say that one allows him four cubits in front of his door? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in Samuel’s name: If there was a door open to the roof, even then the large one is permitted since it is not completely open, and the small one is forbidden because it is completely open.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they did not make an eruv. But if they made an eruv the courtyard becomes like the houses. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is the same whether they made an eruv or they did not make an eruv. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeˋira: “not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house.” If they did not make an eruv, is this necessary? It is forbidden to remove from the roof, not so much to the roof? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: When each one made an eruv by itself; even then not for the vessels which started the Sabbath in the house.

HALAKHAH: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Our Mishnah [refers to] one roof only, but on another roof it is forbidden. If it is not level, but if it is level it is permitted. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Should one not be able to move there up to the place of the partitions? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥiyya: What Samuel said, on this Sabbath itself, what the Mishnah deals with the next Sabbath. Where do we hold? If they made one eruv together, they should be permitted both on this and on the next Sabbath. If they did not make any eruv, they should be forbidden both on this and on the next Sabbath. The case happened as it happened. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: When each of them made separate eruvin, nevertheless the large one is permitted since it is breached along its entire length and the small one is forbidden since it was not breached along its entire length.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said: 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.

Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one turns dough into a clump, it is nullified He explains it, either that one disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or that this clump is repugnant.

On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Rav said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Eleazar said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, why did they say, one may soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Because of danger. Is there a difference between the danger on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath and a Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis objected, a Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath, the shew-breads are distributed in the evening.” There is a difference. Since this is a small matter, he might forget and eat. Rebbi Phineas objected:: A baraita of Rebbi Eleazar disagrees with him. The Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath is a day of rest; on a weekday it is a day of rest. If one is resting on a weekday, not so much more on a Sabbath? Is it not necessary that even things which you are permitted to do on a weekday you have to refrain from on a Sabbath? What would this be? This is soaking pickles and preserves. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. The matter is evident for anything which is served with cold food but for anything which is served with hot food while it is heated he can trim it. Rebbi Mana said, if you are saying so, also he will be embarrassed and will not trim; it will turn out that he will become endangered. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: May one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? He said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa asked Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa, may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? They said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi, may one say to the maker of fried food make me some fried food? He said to him, it is permitted. Make me baked goods? Permitted. Prepare me a wick? No. What is the difference between one and the other? This is food, the other is not food.

On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Rav said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Eleazar said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, why did they say, one may soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Because of danger. Is there a difference between the danger on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath and a Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis objected, a Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath, the shew-breads are distributed in the evening.” There is a difference. Since this is a small matter, he might forget and eat. Rebbi Phineas objected:: A baraita of Rebbi Eleazar disagrees with him. The Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath is a day of rest; on a weekday it is a day of rest. If one is resting on a weekday, not so much more on a Sabbath? Is it not necessary that even things which you are permitted to do on a weekday you have to refrain from on a Sabbath? What would this be? This is soaking pickles and preserves. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. The matter is evident for anything which is served with cold food but for anything which is served with hot food while it is heated he can trim it. Rebbi Mana said, if you are saying so, also he will be embarrassed and will not trim; it will turn out that he will become endangered. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: May one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? He said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa asked Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa, may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? They said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi, may one say to the maker of fried food make me some fried food? He said to him, it is permitted. Make me baked goods? Permitted. Prepare me a wick? No. What is the difference between one and the other? This is food, the other is not food.

“Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. You understand from here two things. You understand something which has no fixed number, or that is apt to being changed, only if the act is meritorious. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if the act is meritorious, for example his sister-in-law which is menstruating and he slept with her. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the act is [not] meritorious, for example two spits, one with slaughtered meat, the other with carcass meat, and he intended to eat from one but ate from the other. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.” In this case the act is not meritorious and Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Samuel from Cappadocia said, the next day it is meritorious.

Does Rabban Gamliel not have fire roasted? He does. The Pesaḥ in Egypt was fire roasted; the Pesaḥ for generations is not fire roasted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rabban Gamliel did not consider consequences of fire as fire; the rabbis consider consequences of fire as fire. Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and in practice acts on his own opinion.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, “with a dry finger” orally. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, “with a dry finger”, with the hand. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan “orally, not with harp nor with lute.” He explains it, the melody indicated by the dry finger one says orally, not with harp nor with lute.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next day and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water. Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Joseph said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , after he lifted it he put it back down. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph. “If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands during ancillary services. But to start services it is necessary.”

Hilfai said, just as staying overnight does not disqualify hands, so it does not disqualify the basin. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hilfai. “If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands.” Therefore it disqualifies the basin. The students of Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Hilfai. So it is: If he sanctified his hands and feet, etc., since staying overnight does not disqualify hands. Therefore it disqualifies the basin, only from day to night.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. There, we have stated: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Rebbi Jonah said, except for the first sanctification. Rebbi Yose said, even for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: All vessels in the Temple were qualified for sanctifying hands and legs. He explains it, except for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: the basin and its base are obstructive. He explains it, their place is obstructive.

Rebbi Jonah said, except for the first sanctification. Rebbi Yose said, even for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: All vessels in the Temple were qualified for sanctifying hands and legs. He explains it, except for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: the basin and its base are obstructive. He explains it, their place is obstructive.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so: “A human, to include the proselytes. From among you, to exclude the apostates.” The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “One does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth.” Do there exist nests of sufferers from gonorrhea and flux among Gentiles? But the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans. So it is, the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects, and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows. He explains it for elevation offerings. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says. Does he not bring libations with it? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects, and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows. He explains it for elevation offerings. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says. Does he not bring libations with it? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.

Somebody put aside his sheqel and it was lost. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is responsible for its alienation until he delivers to the Temple trustee. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Temple property is Heaven’s at any place where it may be. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim..” Still this is because of a regulation oath.

HALAKHAH: “The excess of sheqalim is profane,” etc. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The excess of sheqalim is profane The excess of a tenth of an ephah, the excess of nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, the nests of female sufferers from flux, the nests of women after childbirth, or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, the excesses are gift.”. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains it as excess from the tenth of an ephah of the purification offering of any one in Israel.

HALAKHAH: “For what was the disbursement used,” etc. For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own, donated it to the public, and used it to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated that even if the chamber was full of wood and those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.” Also from the following: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and were fasting but not completing.”

The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,] he splits it and then dedicates. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.

The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,] he splits it and then dedicates. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.

Samuel said, this you only are saying lengthwise; but crosswise it is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, both lengthwise and crosswise are qualified. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Why are Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both saying? He told them, because disqualified roofing disqualifies only in four cubits. A baraita disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: A sukkah which only contains his head, most of his body, and his table. If he brought a plank and added from it three hand-breadths. If you would say crosswise, this is impossible since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible not to sleep under it.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written, do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals. There, we have stated: “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written, on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement? And did we not state, Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

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 on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at 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 artichokes at the end.

HALAKHAH: Rav and Samuel: one says, like the feet of the depositor. The other one says, they are like the feet of him they are deposited with. The Mishnah disagrees with him who says, they are like the feet of him they are deposited with. As we have stated, “If somebody had produce in another village and the people of that village made an eruv to come to him, they should not bring him his produce” If you would say, they are like the feet of him they are deposited with, they should bring him his produce. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the key was in the hands of the owner, or that he did not concede his powers to them before the start of the holiday. And what says this? “If he invited guests they may not carry away their parts unless through another person he gave them the right to their parts on the eve of the holiday”. Are they not like the feet of him they are deposited with from the moment that he gave them the rights to their parts.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of (Rebbi) <rav> Jeremiah, a private person has to mention the occasion on a public fast day. Where does he say it? Between “Redeemer of Israel” and “Healer of the sick.” What does he say? “Answer us, Eternal, answer us in this time and season because we are in great trouble, do not hide Your presence from us, do not be oblivious to our supplications, because You, Eternal, will answer in time of trouble, redeem and save in any time of distress. They cried to the Eternal in their trouble, He led them out from their distress. Praise to You, Eternal, Answering in times of trouble.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael in the name <of the house of rebbi yannai says: in “he who hears prayer.”The Fifteenth benediction, place of all personal additions to the weekday prayers. <Rebbi Jonah> in the name of (Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish) <rav>: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Where does he say it? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day. Rebbi Mana 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 baraita 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 Ze`ira in the name of (Rebbi) <rav> Jeremiah, a private person has to mention the occasion on a public fast day. Where does he say it? Between “Redeemer of Israel” and “Healer of the sick.” What does he say? “Answer us, Eternal, answer us in this time and season because we are in great trouble, do not hide Your presence from us, do not be oblivious to our supplications, because You, Eternal, will answer in time of trouble, redeem and save in any time of distress. They cried to the Eternal in their trouble, He led them out from their distress. Praise to You, Eternal, Answering in times of trouble.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael in the name <of the house of rebbi yannai says: in “he who hears prayer.”The Fifteenth benediction, place of all personal additions to the weekday prayers. <Rebbi Jonah> in the name of (Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish) <rav>: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Where does he say it? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day. Rebbi Mana 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 baraita 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.”

HALAKHAH: Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr., he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: that is if an individual disagrees with an individual. But in the case of an individual following the {anonymous} Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous text.

HALAKHAH: Rav said, answer me, Eternal, answer me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Rebbi Yose said, to help but not to vociferation.” Therefore the first Tanna holds even for vociferation.

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: For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own and donated it to the public. It was used to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated that even if the chamber was full of wood [they would bring of their own]. If those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.” Also from the following: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and they were fasting but not completing.”

Rebbi Jonah said, what you are saying refers to washing to wear; but washing to mend? So we are saying, this washerman is forbidden to work in his trade? Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, “the week in which the Ninth of Av falls one is forbidden to barber and to launder, but on Thursday one is permitted for the honor of the Sabbath.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna, it was repeated regarding (addition) [barbering.] Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. If the Ninth of Av falls on a Sabbath, both weeks are permitted. What is afterwards? Rebbi Joḥanan said, afterwards is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, afterwards is permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached it to the Sepphoreans but they did not accept it. Rebbi Immi said to Rebbi [Yasa]. Does not the nephew of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya disagree with him? He answered, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, afterwards is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, afterwards is permitted. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish explain it? He explains it if the Ninth of Av falls on a Sabbath, and one cannot infer anything. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar announced at the end of the Ninth of Av, the barbers shall open, any who has to eulogize may eulogize. It is written, I shall eliminate all her enjoyment, her holiday, her month, her Sabbath, and all her feast. The Southerners have the custom of ḥer holiday, the Sepphoreans have the custom of her month, the Tiberians have the custom of her week. The Rabbis of Tiberias changed to follow the Rabbis of Sepphoris.

Naḥman the son of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Joy and enjoyment, this implies that eulogies are forbidden. And festive dinner, this implies that fasting is forbidden. And holiday, this implies that work is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, many times I sat before Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman but did not hear these things from him. He said to him, did you hear all the traditions which my father had? The action of Rebbi disagrees, for Rebbi acted demonstratively on two days in the year. He took a bath on the Seventeenth of Tammuz and planted saplings on Purim. Rebbi Ḥabiba in the names of the Rabbis of there: Any place where it is written holiday it is not written theyaccepted, and any place where it is written they accepted it is not written holiday. And here it is written holiday and it is written they accepted? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Family and family, these are the hamlets. City and city, these are the fortified places. Town and town, these are the small towns.

“But for the times of offering of wood by the priests.” For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own and donated it to the public. It was used to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated for them that even if the chamber was full of wood, if those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.” Also from the following: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and we were fasting but not completing.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

It follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagrees with Ben Azzai, as we have stated there: “From here Ben Azzai said, a person is obligated to teach Torah to his daughter, that in case she would drink she knows that merit suspends.”

There, we have stated: “A staff which is full of impure fluids, when it touched the miqweh it is pure, the words of Rebbi Joshua. But the Sages are saying, only if he immerses it completely.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do they disagree? For easy impurity; but for severe impurity even Rebbi Joshua agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they even disagree for severe impurity. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.” Explain it about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the body of one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks is pure without special intention? From the moment he intended elevated purity he (needs) [does not need] intention. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A miqweh containing exactly 40 seah into two persons descended, [both are pure]. One after the other, the first one is pure, the second impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the feet of the first touched the water, the second one also is pure.” Still this is about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A woman in her period may rinse a radish in a cave and it is pure. If she lifted it in any way out of the water it is impure. And we have stated thereto: Rebbi Jehudah declares it pure in the name of Rebbi Joshua. And represents a menstruating woman not a severe impurity? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and it has no standing.

There, we have stated: “A staff which is full of impure fluids, when it touched the miqweh it is pure, the words of Rebbi Joshua. But the Sages are saying, only if he immerses it completely.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do they disagree? For easy impurity; but for severe impurity even Rebbi Joshua agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they even disagree for severe impurity. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.” Explain it about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the body of one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks is pure without special intention? From the moment he intended elevated purity he (needs) [does not need] intention. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A miqweh containing exactly 40 seah into two persons descended, [both are pure]. One after the other, the first one is pure, the second impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the feet of the first touched the water, the second one also is pure.” Still this is about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A woman in her period may rinse a radish in a cave and it is pure. If she lifted it in any way out of the water it is impure. And we have stated thereto: Rebbi Jehudah declares it pure in the name of Rebbi Joshua. And represents a menstruating woman not a severe impurity? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and it has no standing.

There, we have stated: “A staff which is full of impure fluids, when it touched the miqweh it is pure, the words of Rebbi Joshua. But the Sages are saying, only if he immerses it completely.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do they disagree? For easy impurity; but for severe impurity even Rebbi Joshua agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they even disagree for severe impurity. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.” Explain it about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the body of one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks is pure without special intention? From the moment he intended elevated purity he (needs) [does not need] intention. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A miqweh containing exactly 40 seah into two persons descended, [both are pure]. One after the other, the first one is pure, the second impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the feet of the first touched the water, the second one also is pure.” Still this is about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A woman in her period may rinse a radish in a cave and it is pure. If she lifted it in any way out of the water it is impure. And we have stated thereto: Rebbi Jehudah declares it pure in the name of Rebbi Joshua. And represents a menstruating woman not a severe impurity? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and it has no standing.

There, we have stated: “A staff which is full of impure fluids, when it touched the miqweh it is pure, the words of Rebbi Joshua. But the Sages are saying, only if he immerses it completely.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do they disagree? For easy impurity; but for severe impurity even Rebbi Joshua agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they even disagree for severe impurity. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.” Explain it about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the body of one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks is pure without special intention? From the moment he intended elevated purity he (needs) [does not need] intention. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A miqweh containing exactly 40 seah into two persons descended, [both are pure]. One after the other, the first one is pure, the second impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the feet of the first touched the water, the second one also is pure.” Still this is about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A woman in her period may rinse a radish in a cave and it is pure. If she lifted it in any way out of the water it is impure. And we have stated thereto: Rebbi Jehudah declares it pure in the name of Rebbi Joshua. And represents a menstruating woman not a severe impurity? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and it has no standing.

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, only heave prepared in the purity of sancta. Therefore not in its own. Rebbi Yose said, even if prepared in its own. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “He has to watch them until they immersed themselves.” Explain it: not in the time of the olive harvest. Could you say not in the time of the grape harvest? Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, if food prepared in purity touched it before three people used it, at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure, not at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it before the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is impure and then pure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was full the food prepared in purity remains pure. If he cleared it, the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was empty the food prepared in purity becomes impure. If he filled it, the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind?

If food prepared in purity touched it, from Modiin and closer the fluid made the vessel impure. If it was filled with water, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is trustworthy about the vessel but not trustworthy about the fluid. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trustworthy about both. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it about one who said, I separated it when I was fellow. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, there is no fellowship for water.

It was stated: All these for whom they said that they shave on a holiday are permitted to shave during the thirty days of mourning. There are Tannaim who state, forbidden. [There are Tannaim who state, permitted.] Rav Ḥisda said, he who said permitted, if there happened to be a holiday; he who said forbidden, if there was no holiday. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda. If his mournings immediately followed one another he can lighten with a knife or coarse shears but not with scissors. But the second mourning relative to the first should be considered as an act of God and he should be permitted. Therefore it only was said for the honor of the holiday. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, one understands the first Seven days. Within Thirty? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis asked: Did we not state, these are the matters which are forbidden to the mourner during all Seven? If he would be forbidden during Thirty days, within Seven not so much more? It could not have been said except if mournings immediately followed one another. Does this imply that he is permitted? Rebbi Mattania said, he who said “forbidden”, as usual with scissors.

A man lost his tefillin on the holiday. He came to Rebbi Ḥananel who sent him to Rebbi Abba bar Nathan. He said to him, give him your tefillin and go, write for yourself. Rav said to him, go and write for him. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “a person may write tefillin and mezuzot for himself,” therefore not for others. He explains it: writing for supply.

“And spins on his hip the blue string for his ṣiṣit.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: he spins even using a spindle. Rav said, he spins using a spindle both for himself or for others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “and spins on his hip the blue string for his ṣiṣit;” therefore not for others. He explains it: spinning for supply.

For no deceased one he rends the trim except for father and mother, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, any tear which does not completely sever the trim is a frivolous tear. Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah in two things. Rebbi Joḥanan heard that Rebbi Ḥanina was weak. He was going up to visit him. On the road he heard that he had died. He descended from his donkey, took out the good Sabbath garment, and tore it. As we have stated there: “The High Priest rends his garment below, the common priest above.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: On top, high starting with the seam, below, low starting with the seam. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really low. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana follows Rebbi Jehudah. If following Rebbi Jehudah, he should not tear at all! How about this? It is a stringency for the High Priest that he shall sever the seam completely.

“Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: The she-ram and the wife of his brother who did not live in his world were in the paragraph. Why do you see fit to say that the co-wife of the she-ram is permitted but the co-wife of the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is forbidden? He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children. Is it not enough that she cannot be eligible for the levirate but you also want to forbid her co-wife? But the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is under an incest prohibition and any incest prohibition frees the co-wife. Assi said, the co-wife of a she-ram is forbidden. The Mishnah disagrees with Assi: “All of these, if they died, or refused, or were divorced, or turned out to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Assi follows Rebbi Meїr since Rebbi Meїr said, in any case where you cannot take me in levirate you cannot take my co-wife.

HALAKHAH: “All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. But we hold in case she says “I cannot stand marriage”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says”, etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case. What means, one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In qiddushin, the same holds. “ I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I gave her qiddushin,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry the wife.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ This one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says, I gave her qiddushin. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if [the father] says, I did betroth her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says. I gave her qiddushin and one of them jumped the gun and married her. But if he said, I gave her qiddushin and married her, and another one comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says”, etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case. What means, one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In qiddushin, the same holds. “ I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I gave her qiddushin,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry the wife.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ This one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says, I gave her qiddushin. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if [the father] says, I did betroth her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says. I gave her qiddushin and one of them jumped the gun and married her. But if he said, I gave her qiddushin and married her, and another one comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to fetuses. Rebbi Yose said, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. That is the Mishnah, “if somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” as you say here, retroactively ḥalîṣah did not touch her, so retroactively the child is a son and receives the benefit. There, we have stated: “If somebody says, if my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina, if she gave birth to a male, [the male baby] will take a mina. If a female, 200 [drachmae], if she gave birth to a female, that one will take 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is only for his son, but not for any other. Rebbi Yasa said, even any other. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, only from a sick person, but not a healthy one; only movables but not real estate. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son overseas or that [his wife] was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took].” What does Rebbi Eleazar do with this? There is a difference because it is his child. The second part [of the Mishnah] disagrees with Samuel in the interpretation of Rebbi Yose: “If they returned everything and then the son died or she had a miscarriage, anybody who takes first after that acquires it.” The first group did not acquire. Even at the beginning they should not have acquired! Did not Rebbi Yose say, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. He was not living! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, because of abandoning. The rabbis of Caesarea, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Abba bar Natan: Rebbi Natan changed his mind because of that Mishnah: “If a male, a mina, if a female, 200.” Is a female in this situation not like an outsider? Bar Qappara stated: “On transfers benefit to a one day old.”

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to fetuses. Rebbi Yose said, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. That is the Mishnah, “if somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” as you say here, retroactively ḥalîṣah did not touch her, so retroactively the child is a son and receives the benefit. There, we have stated: “If somebody says, if my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina, if she gave birth to a male, [the male baby] will take a mina. If a female, 200 [drachmae], if she gave birth to a female, that one will take 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is only for his son, but not for any other. Rebbi Yasa said, even any other. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, only from a sick person, but not a healthy one; only movables but not real estate. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son overseas or that [his wife] was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took].” What does Rebbi Eleazar do with this? There is a difference because it is his child. The second part [of the Mishnah] disagrees with Samuel in the interpretation of Rebbi Yose: “If they returned everything and then the son died or she had a miscarriage, anybody who takes first after that acquires it.” The first group did not acquire. Even at the beginning they should not have acquired! Did not Rebbi Yose say, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. He was not living! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, because of abandoning. The rabbis of Caesarea, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Abba bar Natan: Rebbi Natan changed his mind because of that Mishnah: “If a male, a mina, if a female, 200.” Is a female in this situation not like an outsider? Bar Qappara stated: “On transfers benefit to a one day old.”

Rav said, in any case where the true fact can never be established, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet and one of fat, he ate one of them, and then a raven ate the other. Since he cannot ascertain the true fact, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for this doubt. But if the raven ate first and then he ate, since he could have ascertained the true fact, one has to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. But did not Rav say, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet? Even though Rav said, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet, he agrees here that he could have ascertained the true fact. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “As Rebbi Eleazar says, one must bring a reparation offering for the doubt of suet.” What does Rav do with that? They disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “If there were both a piece of profane [meat] and a piece of sacrificial [meat], he ate one of them and it is not known which one, he brings a reparation offering for the doubt. If he [then] ate the second piece, he brings a reparation offering for a certain transgression. If he ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second, each one brings a reparation offering for the doubt.” One understands that the first brings a reparation offering for the doubt. Why the second? Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the piece was large, he ate half of it and left the other half. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month child of the first [brother] or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt.” Here it is impossible to ascertain the true fact and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt! Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before us. Since he could just have touched her and then separated, he could have known whether it is his or the other’s, it is as if he could have ascertained the true fact!

Rav said, in any case where the true fact can never be established, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet and one of fat, he ate one of them, and then a raven ate the other. Since he cannot ascertain the true fact, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for this doubt. But if the raven ate first and then he ate, since he could have ascertained the true fact, one has to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. But did not Rav say, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet? Even though Rav said, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet, he agrees here that he could have ascertained the true fact. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “As Rebbi Eleazar says, one must bring a reparation offering for the doubt of suet.” What does Rav do with that? They disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “If there were both a piece of profane [meat] and a piece of sacrificial [meat], he ate one of them and it is not known which one, he brings a reparation offering for the doubt. If he [then] ate the second piece, he brings a reparation offering for a certain transgression. If he ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second, each one brings a reparation offering for the doubt.” One understands that the first brings a reparation offering for the doubt. Why the second? Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the piece was large, he ate half of it and left the other half. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month child of the first [brother] or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt.” Here it is impossible to ascertain the true fact and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt! Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before us. Since he could just have touched her and then separated, he could have known whether it is his or the other’s, it is as if he could have ascertained the true fact!

Rav said, in any case where the true fact can never be established, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet and one of fat, he ate one of them, and then a raven ate the other. Since he cannot ascertain the true fact, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for this doubt. But if the raven ate first and then he ate, since he could have ascertained the true fact, one has to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. But did not Rav say, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet? Even though Rav said, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet, he agrees here that he could have ascertained the true fact. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “As Rebbi Eleazar says, one must bring a reparation offering for the doubt of suet.” What does Rav do with that? They disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “If there were both a piece of profane [meat] and a piece of sacrificial [meat], he ate one of them and it is not known which one, he brings a reparation offering for the doubt. If he [then] ate the second piece, he brings a reparation offering for a certain transgression. If he ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second, each one brings a reparation offering for the doubt.” One understands that the first brings a reparation offering for the doubt. Why the second? Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the piece was large, he ate half of it and left the other half. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month child of the first [brother] or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt.” Here it is impossible to ascertain the true fact and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt! Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before us. Since he could just have touched her and then separated, he could have known whether it is his or the other’s, it is as if he could have ascertained the true fact!

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: There Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu, said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous Mishnah. And here, you say so? He said to him, if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else said it? Since when Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. It must be that Rebbi did not find a disagreement in the Mishnah; but if others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice follows the anonymous [text]. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Abba and Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even if others taught a disagreement but Rebbi taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. Why does he agree here with a dissenting opinion? Rebbi Samuel ben Inaya in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That means, if no diagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], but if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], practice does not follow the anonymous [opinion]. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That is, if individual disagrees with individual. But if an individual disagrees next to the [anonymous] Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous [text].

Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: There Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu, said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous Mishnah. And here, you say so? He said to him, if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else said it? Since when Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. It must be that Rebbi did not find a disagreement in the Mishnah; but if others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice follows the anonymous [text]. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Abba and Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even if others taught a disagreement but Rebbi taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous [text]. Why does he agree here with a dissenting opinion? Rebbi Samuel ben Inaya in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That means, if no diagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], but if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous [text], practice does not follow the anonymous [opinion]. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. That is, if individual disagrees with individual. But if an individual disagrees next to the [anonymous] Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous [text].