eudaimon

Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: “He Who forms light and creates darkness”; one should not say: “He Who forms light and creates radiance.” Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: “There they sang for You”, one should not say: “There they praised You”. Rebbi Levi, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Levi bar Sisi: one has to pronounce tizkeru voiced. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: one has to pronounce ki lĕ‘ôlām ḥasdȏ voiced. It was stated: One does not take as reader anyone from Haifa, Beth Sheän or Tiv‘on since they read ח like ה and ע like א. If his pronunciation was orderly, it would be permitted.

Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said: He who enters the synagogue and finds them standing and praying, if he knows that he could start and finish before the reader starts, so that he may answer “Amen”, he may pray, otherwise he should not pray. About which “Amen” did they talk? Two Amoraïm, one says the Amen of “the holy King” and the other says the Amen of “He Who listens to prayer”. Rebbi Phineas said, they do not disagree. He who said: the Amen of “the holy King”, on the Sabbath, and he who said: the Amen of “He Who listens to prayer” on weekdays.

Isaac the trader asked Rebbi Isaac: What does one read on a New Moon that falls in Ḥanukkah? He said to him: Three for the New Moon and one for Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Phineas and Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Abba bar Zamina brought it in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa: Three read of Ḥanukka and one of the New Moon, to tell you that the fourth one comes only because of the New Moon. Bar Shelemiah the scribe asked Rebbi Mana: Think of it, if the New Moon of Ḥanukkah falls on a Sabbath, do not seven read? How can you say, to tell you that the fourth one comes only because of the New Moon? They asked the scribe; he said to him: That is a true question of a scribe.

Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris asked before Rebbi Mana: Where does one say this? He said to him: You still do not understand? Anything for the future one says in “Service” and anything about the past one says in “Thanksgiving”. The Mishnah (Berakhot 9:6) says as much: “One gives thanks for the past and cries about the future.”

Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ḥelbo. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Ḥelbo comes to it in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Ḥaifa: A person has to turn his face to the wall in order to pray. What is the reason? (Is. 38:2) “Hezekiah turned his face to the wall.” Which wall did he lift his eyes to? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he lifted his eyes to Raḥab’s wall, (Jos. 2:15) “For her house was on the wall of the fortification.” He said before Him: Master of the world, Raḥab the inn-keeper saved two souls for You, and see how many souls You saved for her. [That is what is written (Jos.6:23): “The youths came, etc.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai said, even if her family was 200 persons strong and they furthermore were related to another 200 families, all of these were saved by her merit.] My forefathers who brought to You all these proselytes, so much more. Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Pappus said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the Temple. (Ez. 43:8) “When they put their lintel next to My lintel, their doorposts next to My doorpost, with the wall between Me and them.” They were important people, they could not go and pray in the Temple every time, so they prayed in their house and the Holy One, praise to Him, considers it as if they had prayed in the Temple. My fathers who built for You all this glory, so much more. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the woman from Sunem, as it was said (2Kings 4:10): “Let us make a small upper storey on the wall”. He said before Him: Master of the world, the woman from Sunem made one wall for Elisha and You revived her son. My forefathers who built for You all this glory, so much more that You should give me my life. The rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. (Jer. 4:19) “My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar.” He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs that You gave me and I did not find one of them I offended You with; so much more that You should give me my life.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: If he did not ask in the benediction “for years” he says it in “He Who hears prayer”. Similarly, if he did not mention the power of rains in “resurrection of the dead” he says it in “He Who hears prayer”. If the request, made under duress, may be recited in “He Who hears prayer,” the mention, made under easy circumstances, so much more! But is it not stated: If he did not ask in the benediction “for years” or that he did not mention the power of rains in “resurrection of the dead”, one makes him repeat? Rebbi Eudaimon the brother of Rebbi Yose said, if he did not say it in “He Who hears prayer”!

Rebbi Zeïra asked: These three that are called, how are you treating them? As three who ate together or as three who ate each one for himself? If you treat them as three who ate together then the first one recites the benediction before, the last one recites the benediction after, and the middle one does not recite any benediction at all. If you treat them as three who ate each one for himself then even the middle one recites benedictions before and after. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, they did learn the benedictions for the Torah from Grace only in public. If in public, then in private one should not recite any benediction! Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said: They made it equal to other commandments of the Torah. Just as other commandments of the Torah need benedictions, this also needs a benediction.

The owner has to distribute by hand to avoid that he would see a poor person of his acquaintance and throw it before him. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon questioned: If he finished harvesting his field, you say that peah returned to the sheaves. Even so, does the owner have to distribute by hand to avoid that he would see a poor person of his acquaintance and throw it before him?

HALAKHAH: This means that dropped berries become sanctified in the act of falling down. Does this not simply answer Hilfai’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said: There is a difference, because he prevented them from reaching the ground.

“ That all tithes should be mine as long as you own it, he gets its tithes as long as the buyer owns it.” When he sold it to a third party, he has no tithes. If the buyer then bought it back from the third party, Rebbi Ḥiyya states that he has no tithes, Rebbi Hoshaia states that the tithes are his. This disagreement turns out like the other disagreement, as we have stated there “that he who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah.” Rebbi Ḥanin stated before Rebbi La: Two Amoraïm, one says for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, and the other says, both for ketubah and individual stipulations. For him who says, for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, he has the tithes. For him who says, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations, he has no tithes. But did we not state: “If somebody received (as sharecropper) from the daughter of a Cohen, she has the tithes. If she married an Israel, they split the tithes. If she was widowed or divorced, she returns to her prior status.” There when he sold, here when he received. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “When she sold?” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there it left the power of both parties; here, it left the power of the seller but not that of the buyer.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides; a beam saves in one direction. This may be compared to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

There is no difference whether one built a fence and then planted eleven vines or he planted eleven vines and then built a fence. If the middle vine is destroyed we have trellis and interrupted trellis. If the fence is destroyed, there is no trellis and no interrupted trellis. Rebbi Eudaimon, brother of Rebbi Yose, inquired: If he then rebuilt the fence, since the trellis was reconstituted, do you say that the interrupted trellis also was reconstituted?

If he sowed it for seeds and then thought about it for vegetable, it follows his thought. If he sowed it as vegetable, the thought of seeds cannot take hold on it unless he withheld three morbiot. That is, if it was one-third ripe before the New Year, but if it was not one-third ripe before the New Year, even if he did not withhold three morbiot. If he sowed for seeds and all [plants] formed complete pods before the New Year, its seeds are tithed for the past year, its greens are tithed at the time of their harvest. If some [plants] had formed complete pods but some did not, that is the case of: “He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits”. Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa stated: Even if not all [plants] formed complete pods before the New Year, its seeds are tithed for the past year, its greens are tithed at the time of their harvest. Rebbi Yose said, that is if it was one-third ripe for the intention of seeds. But if it was one-third ripe for the intention of vegetables, it is impossible to say that its seeds are tithed for the past year and its greens are tithed at the time of their harvest, since you say that “he collects it together with his threshing; it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his seeds”.

Rebbi Yudan said, there, if he said I did such and such, here, if he says do such and such. Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi inquired: If he has understanding for the past, he should have understanding for the future; ifhe has no understanding for the past, he would not have understanding for the future! Rebbi Eudaimon said, here we deal with a mute; there is no agency for a mute. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we deal with a sane person. Why is there no divorce? Because I say, he was occupied with his documents. We also stated so: “When was this said? When he explained it in his regular state. But if he was paralyzed by sickness, once is enough.”

The words of the Sages. Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be thought of;” (Num. 18:26) “you shall lift.” Just as thought has to be definite, so your giving heave has to be definite.

Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon asked: Can he be trusted if he says, I did it intentionally? They said to him, if other people knew, it is not on his [word]; otherwise, the mouth which forbade is the mouth that permitted.

How far? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is forbidden for three harvests; it is forbidden up to the fourth harvest, but the fourth is permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon asked before Rebbi Mana: How far for heave? He said to him, they made the fourth harvest like the first harvest. Just as the first harvest of growth whose seeds disappear is forbidden for heave and permitted for ṭevel, so the fourth harvest of growth whose seeds do not disappear is forbidden for heave and permitted for ṭevel.

Rebbi Yose said, the statement is reasonable on Sabbath eves; since everybody is bringing, it is as if she separated from what is obligated for what is obligated. But on weekdays, while they instituted that ḥallah may be taken from pure for impure and not earmarked, but from what is exempt for what is obligated? Rebbi Jonah said, it is only reasonable on weekdays, but on Sabbath eve she would have to say “all, including the impure.” Why? Since [some dough] is taken before all is one mass, when all is made into one mass the former is sanctified as ḥallah. If one would say “except the impure contained in it”, it would turn out that impure ṭevel is mixed with ḥallah. If you say “all, including the impure,” it is impure profane; therefore, it is better to give from what is exempt for what is obligated to avoid impure ṭevel mixed with ḥallah. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, does it not become dedicated retroactively? Since it is dedicated retroactively, it is as if one gave from what is obligated for the obligated.

Rebbi Ḥizqia, Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu, in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: For an Elder four cubits; once he passed one sits down. The High Priest, from the moment one sees him until he disappears from view. What is the reason? (Ex. 33:8) “It was, when Moses went to the tent, the entire people rose, etc.” Two Amoraïm, one as praise and one as shame. The one who says, as praise: To see the just person and acquire merit. The one who says, as shame: Look at his thighs, look at his feet, he eats from the Jews, he drinks from the Jews, all he has is from the Jews.

If one set a fire and extinguished with the same blowing he is liable twice. Rebbi Eudaimon the brother of Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if he blew at vessels and broke them, he pays full damages. He who stirs coals under a pot on the Sabbath is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, he is liable twice, once that he extinguished the upper layer and once that he set fire to the lower layer. But he who stirs coals to warm himself in front of them on the Sabbath is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is a disagreement; according to him who said that he is liable only once. But according to him who said that he is twice liable he is liable. For Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he is not twice liable but he is considered as if twice liable. Rebbi Yudan said, there he does not want that they be set on fire and he does not want that they be extinguished. But here he wants that they be set on fire and he wants that they be extinguished.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A donkey may not go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. It was stated, “but it may walk around with it in the courtyard.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The same applies to the saddle. It was stated: “a donkey may go out with its saddle to get warm but one may not tie the load belt and not lower the strap under its tail.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: From where these things? As we have stated: “The practices of Sabbath … are like mountains hanging on a hair,” and you are saying so? He could have objected, what is the difference between a ladder and a package of straw? A ladder is substantial, a package of straw is not substantial. Rebbi Ḥanina said, he could have objected, what is the difference between a package of straw and an expert amulet? As we have stated, “it is forbidden that an animal go out with an expert amulet.” Rebbi Eudaimon said, he could have objected, what is the difference between a package of straw and a wound dressing? There are Tannaim who state, they may not go out with a package of straw; there are Tannaim who state, they may go out. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, this is a tannaitic difference. For him who said, they may go out with a package of straw; they may go out with a wound dressing. But for him who said, they may not go out with a package of straw; they may not go out with a wound dressing.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity, and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not answer him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Cahana asked him, it is pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqan asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal (in) [is like] its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this.” Nothing else is like this in the amount needed for its impurity. But its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he who says “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant told him, this is correct; Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi instructed to bring it in shoes. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos instructed to make a wall of people and to bring it in shoes. Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon had a case to circumcise his son, Rav Shishaa. They forgot to bring the knife. He asked Rebbi Mana who said, it should be deferred until tomorrow. He asked Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar who told them, you did not forget to mix spiced wine, but to bring a knife you forgot; it should be deferred until tomorrow.

If a wall on one side is extended and on the other side is shortened. Cahana said, he puts the beam obliquely and uses it obliquely. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Cahana: he puts the beam in the diagonal and uses in the diagonal, but only on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten? (From) Rebbi Yose [said], Rav Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it, on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits]? [Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits].] You conclude to say, what was problematic for the one was obvious for the other [and what was problematic for the other was obvious for the one].

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said (in the name of Rebbi), it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi [Yose], what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They permitted planks for wells only for pilgrims. Rav Abin said, at the time of pilgrimage. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Because of the pilgrims. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, the Mishnah implies that one makes planks for wells in the present time. But did we not state, “one fills from the cistern of the diaspora with a wheel on the Sabbath, from the large cistern, etc.” Why “may one fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday”? But at the time when Israel came from the diaspora and camped at this well, the prophets among them stipulated that that one could fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday. They did not permit all cold wells, only this well at which they camped. As you are saying there, what was permitted was permitted, and here what was permitted was permitted. Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa instructed in Haifa, Rebbi Jeremiah instructed in Ḥelef about planks for wells in the present time.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Eudaimon in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the case of a baby in danger. His colleague objected to him: If in the case of a baby in danger should he not carry him in his hand? He answered him, if he can bring him in a permitted way.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, one eats all during the fifth [hour],” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only,. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only. How is that? Split the day, half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, he excludes leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

It was stated: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights.” There are Tannaim who state: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the incense, and the incense the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the trimming of the lights, so that the libations of the daily sacrifice should be accompanying it.” There is nothing preceding the daily morning sacrifice and nothing later than the daily evening sacrifice except Pesaḥ and incense on Passover Eve. “ From where that nothing should precede the daily morning sacrifice? The verse says, on it ˋolah. And from where that nothing should invalidate the daily evening sacrifice? The verse says, on it šelamim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is not written here he arranges on it ˋolah but he arranges on it the ˋolah, that no elevation offering precede the daily morning sacrifice. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, people lacking expiation bring their expiatory sacrifices after the daily evening sacrifice to enable them to immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening. Rebbi Yudan said, that is, for a rich sufferer from skin disease. But a poor sufferer from skin disease, does he not bring a bird? Said Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon, does he not bring a reparation sacrifice?

What results from the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, switching on the other days of the year. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose, on the other days of the year. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is qualified; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is disqualified.

“A fire burn, I could think if it stays moist, the verse says, if the burn was healed. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar; until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.” And here he says so? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted, the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable. But here what do you have?

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams.

It is written, Solomon came to the high place in Gibeon to Jerusalem. Where do we hold? If he came from Jerusalem, we should say “from Jerusalem to the high place.” If he came from the high place, we should say, “he came from the high place to Jerusalem.” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he came to the high place not to turn his back to the Holiness.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not take notice of him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna asked him, is it pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqa asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this,” in the amount needed for impurity but its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he who said “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant said to him, this is correct. Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards (Peah), a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Eudaimon the salt-dealer slept in front of his store. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba passed by and told him, go and sleep in your sukkah. Rebbi Mana was best man for Rebbi Jacob bar Yafliti. He went and asked Rebbi Yose, who told him, go and sleep in your sukkah. Rebbi Isaac bar Marion was best man for somebody. He asked Rebbi Eleazar who told him, go and sleep in your sukkah.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the (last) [first] festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the (first) [last] day of the festival? Only split. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be jouyouson your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, hallel and joy eight? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

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.

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

“Nor dance.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Jumping: one lifts both legs simultaneously. Dancing: one lifts one and keeps the other down. Rebbi Eleazar said, all sound making is forbidden on the Sabbath. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was of the opinion to knock for a new synagogue. Rebbi Hillel son of Rabbi Vales would knock on a cup. Rabbi Ila stayed late at the great assembly. When he went home, he found them sleeping. He lay down on the stairs so as not to knock on the gate on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jeremiah explained Scripture with Rebbi Immi’s son. He went and wanted to wake him up in the morning of the Sabbath. He started knocking on the door. His father told him, who did permit this to you? Rebbi Abba bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Yasa, may one knock on a belly on the Sabbath? He said to him, who permitted that on a weekday? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, the rabbis are accustomed on a weekday from the navel upwards, through his clothing from the navel downwards.

Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris asked before Rebbi Mana: Where does one say this? He said to him: You still do not understand? So says Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Anything for the future one says in “Service” and anything about the past one says in “Thanksgiving”. The Mishnah says as much: “One gives thanks for the past and cries about the future.”

Isaac the trader asked Rebbi Isaac: What does one read on a New Moon that falls on Ḥanukkah? He said to him: Three for the New Moon and one for Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Abba bar Zamina brought it in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa: Three read of Ḥanukka and one of the New Moon, to tell you that the fourth one comes only because of the New Moon. Bar Shelemiah the scribe asked Rebbi Mana: Think of it, if the New Moon of Ḥanukkah falls on a Sabbath, do not seven read? How can you say, to tell you that the fourth one comes only because of the New Moon? He said to him: That is a true question of a scribe.

If it spread while in quarantine, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “From the sufferer from skin disease; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds, (should not) [is it not logical that] one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure, one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity] depends on the count of his days. So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day. One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day.

The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: I heard from your fathers that all covers [which existed] only were in Benjamin’s part. What is the reason? He rests between his shoulders. But is it not written, He despised the Tent of Joseph and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah. Did he choose Judah? But choosing, choosing. Since choosing there includes Benjamin, so choosing here includes Benjamin. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. Sacral meat given to atonement is consumed in the part of Joseph. Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris said, like vertex of a trapezoid entered from Joseph’s part into Benjamin’s part; on it the altar was situated. What is the reason? The border turned eastward to Taanat-Shilo, up to the door-sill of Shilo. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. That the Divine Presence dwelt in the greatness of Joseph.

Isaac the trader asked Rebbi Isaac: What does one read on a New Moon that falls on Ḥanukkah? He said to him: Three for the New Moon and one for Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Abba bar Zamina brought it in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa: Three read of Ḥanukka and one of the New Moon, to tell you that the fourth one comes only because of the New Moon. Bar Shelemiah the scribe asked Rebbi Mana: Think of it, if the New Moon of Ḥanukkah falls on a Sabbath, do not seven read? How can you say, to tell you that the fourth one comes only because of the New Moon? He said to him: That is a true question of a scribe.

Rebbi Ze`ira asked: These three that are called, how are you treating them? As three who ate together or as three who ate each one for himself? If you treat them as three who ate together then the first one recites the benediction before, the last one recites the benediction after, and the middle one does not recite any benediction at all. If you treat them as three who ate each one for himself then even the middle one recites benedictions before and after. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, they did learn the benedictions for the Torah from Grace only in public. If in public, then in private one should not recite any benediction! Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said: They made it equal to other commandments of the Torah. Just as other commandments of the Torah need benedictions, this also needs a benediction.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the las festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the firs day of the festival? Or inverse? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be joyous on your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, “hallel and joy eight”? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

There we have stated: “The deep mourner touches but may not sacrifice nor take his part of meat in the evening.” There you are saying, he may touch. But here you are saying, he is forbidden to touch. Rebbi Yannai said, here when he put his mind to other things, but there if he did not put his mind to other things. Rebbi Yose asked, if he put his mind to other things should he not also be forbidden heave? How is this? As Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: They treated him like one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta. This implies that one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. And here he is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. There we have stated: “For the House of Shammai are saying, she needs immersion at the end, but the House of Hillel are saying, she does not need immersion at the end.” Where do we hold? If about eating heave it is difficult for the House of Shammai; if about eating sancta it is difficult for the House of Hillel. Does she not lack expiation? Do people lacking expiation not need immersion for sancta? If you are saying that there one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated here the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute. If you are saying that here one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated there the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said before Rebbi Mana, we are dealing with heave. There the reason of the House of Shammai is because of the unlearned, that they should not say, we saw a woman losing blood and eating heave.

If they moved him from one grave to another. There are Tannaim who state, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. There are Tannaim who state, from the moment the second cover plate was laid. A case happened to Rebbi Jonah. He asked Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, who said to him, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. A case happened to Rebbi Jeremiah. He asked Rebbi Ze`ira; Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Immi. He said to him, from the moment the second cover plate was laid. He came to him; he said to him, he instructed you by a restriction. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, this you are saying within the Seven {days}. But after Seven mourning already passed. If they intended it from the start. But if there was no intent from the start to remove him, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. As the following: The people of Bursa buried Gamliel from Yakontia with them. After three days they changed their mind to return him. They went and asked Rebbi Simon. Rebbi Simon said to them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Since you had no intention to remove him, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. A case happened to Jesua the brother of Dorai. He came to ask Rebbi Abbahu who told him, from the moment the second cover plate was laid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when we asked this from Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa who said, from the moment the first cover plate was laid. He told him, I did not hear. If you heard, go out and instruct.

If he was informed on the holiday about the death of a relative but the Thirty were completed before the end of the holiday. The colleagues are saying, since he was informed within the Thirty, he counts Seven after the Thirty. Rebbi Yose said to them, since he heard at a moment where he could not mourn it is as if he was informed after Thirty(;) [and] he observes only one day. Rabbi Idi of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he received recent information on the Sabbath, he tears {his garment} the next day and mourns. Rebbi Ḥanania said, he does not mourn. Rebbi Mana said to him, is there tearing without mourning? Since for his father or his mother even after a length of time he is obligated to tear. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even as derivative of a derivative he is forbidden to shave. As the following: Rebbi Mana was in Caesarea. He heard that his grandson had died, and he went and eulogized. They said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us, even as derivative of a derivative he is forbidden to shave? He said to them, those who were with him. We were not there. Rebbi Eudaimon bar Tobi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: even as derivative of a derivative he is obligated to tear, as Rebbi Abbahu said, groan silently, from here that he has to cry. Do not arrange mourning for the dead, from here that he has to mourn. Your splendor put on yourself, some want to say, these are tefillin. Some want to say, this is pressing. He who says these are tefillin; just as tefillin refer to two days, also mourning two days? He who says this is pressing; just as pressing is for thirty days, also mourning thirty days? Put your shoes on your feet, from here that he is forbidden wearing shoes. And do not cover your mustache, from here that he has to cover his mouth. Could he cover it from below? Rav Ḥisda said, so they should not say, he has a mouth-ache. And do not eat men’s bread, from here that the smaller ones go to the greater ones. And from where that the greater ones go to the smaller ones? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is written: For so says the Eternal, do not go to a funeral repast, etc.

For all deceased he cannot shave until after Thirty; for his father and his mother until it becomes wild growth or until his relatives complain. <as the following:> The mother of Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon died eight days before the holiday. He came to ask Rebbi Mana who told him, anything dependent on Seven and Thirty is interrupted by the holiday. But here, until it becomes wild growth or until his colleagues complain.

For no deceased he does bare his heart except for his father and his mother, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon bar Tanḥum: Because the commandment “honor” became inactive for him.

Does Abba Shaul hold with Rebbi Aqiba? Since Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! What Rebbi Aqiba said refers to a sister-in-law who whored. What Abba Shaul said refers to his sister-in-law. It comes like Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta since Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He ploughed five times and planted five saplings and had intercourse using a bedsheet. These are they: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eudaimon ben Rebbi Yose.

“If he allots her to his son;” with [the girl’s] agreement. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no agreement here. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said so, the statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say the statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, is he not a minor? “If he allots her to his son;” with [the latter’s] agreement. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he allots her to his minor or adult son, with and without the latter’s agreement. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he allots her only to his adult son with the latter’s agreement.

Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? For Rebbi Abun it is obvious that he becomes a man retroactively, so certainly also for the future, for he explains the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Why does Rebbi Yose not explain the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah since he asked, when they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? Rebbi Mana said, because he had difficulty. Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? One understands the case of a widow. But a divorcee? Explain it if he copulated with her after he became an adult and divorced her. Ḥalîṣah? Explain it if he copulated with her, died, and the [adult] brothers performed ḥalîṣah; she had ḥalîṣah because of him. In that case, even if he was younger than nine [years]! Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is correct. But because in all cases one stated “nine”, one stated this with them.

Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died and did not repudiate since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so and died, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Eudaimon said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if there is no levir besides her father.

There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina of a woman whose ketubah was less than 200 zuz, and he said, she should take what he had written for her. He said to Rebbi Mana, sit down and sign. He answered, follow your argument and sign yourself, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Samuel, by the Temple šeqel? Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Because of a renunciation. Now, should a woman whose ketubah was for less than 200 [zuz] not hide her ketubah in order to collect by the Temple šeqel? They said in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, at a place where one does not write a ketubah. But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she presents she collects. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: If a deaf-mute man married a hearing wife, she has no claim for support nor ketubah, but if she died, he inherits from her, for she wanted to connect him with her property, but he could not want to connect her with his property. If a hearing male married a deaf-mute woman, she has a claim to support and ketubah, but if she died, he does not inherit, for he wanted to connect her with his property, but she could not want to connect him with her property. But can a deaf-mute woman acquire and have ketubah? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that at the moment he married her, she was hearing. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he married her when she was hearing but she turned deaf-mute. In any case, did he not marry her when she was hearing? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that she was deaf-mute and turned hearing; he married her when she was hearing and she turned deaf. That you should not say, because at the start she was deaf-mute she has [no] ketubah, therefore it is necessary to say that she (does not have) [has]. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but since if one has sexual relations with a deaf-mute, is he not liable for a fine? Only if there were no fine would there be no ketubah. Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult woman collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina!

“If she brought”. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, not only if she brought but even if she could have brought. As it was stated: His wife ascends with him but does not descend with him; a widow and her children descend but do not ascend; workers ascend but do not descend. The daughter neither ascends nor descends. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Jehudah said, because one cares for the slave girl. Rebbi Abun said, Because these labors are degrading, they are referred to as the slave girl’s. Rebbi Judah ben Rebbi Abun said, because usually a woman does not sit aimlessly in her house. Rav Huna said, even if she brought him 100 slave girls, he can force her to serve him with particular attention. What are services with particular attention? She rubs his body, washes his feet, and mixes him the cup. Why? Because she is obligated to do that, or because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these? If you say because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these, here she brought him slaves! It must be because she is obligated to do that. Rebbi Eudaimon in Sepphoris asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it not reasonable because she is obligated to do that? He said to him, that is what I am always thinking.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: If she requested her ketubah in court, she lost her claim to sustenance. Rebbi Yose said, but only from a clear mind; not if forced. As in the case of the widow of Rebbi Eudaimon from Mozva to whom they said, Rebbi Abba bar Cohen wants you. She requested her ketubah and lost her sustenance. After the matter became known, it was brought before Rebbi Yose and she returned to her sustenance.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish provided an opening: If you had known that one who makes a vow is as if he put a neck-iron on his neck, would you have made the vow? It is as if a gang of prisoners was passing by, he saw that there was one unused neck-iron and put his head into it! “To bind a prohibition onto himself”, as you say, “he was bound with chains.” Rebbi Jonathan provided an opening: If you had known that one who makes a vow is like one who builds an idolatrous altar and one who continues in it is like one who sacrifices there, would you have made the vow? That is difficult to understand. Idolatry is a capital crime but vows are a simple prohibition; how can you say that? You have only what Rebbi Yannai said, one who listens to his urges is as if he worshipped idols. Rebbi Isaac provided an opening: If you had known that one who makes a vow is like one who takes a sword and sticks it in his heart, would you have made the vow? “Some talk bluntly like sword piercings.” Rebbi Ḥanina from Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Phineas: It does not say “piercing” but “sword piercings”. For example, one who made a vow not to eat a loaf. Woe if he eats, woe if he does not eat. If he eats he transgresses his vow. If he does not eat he sins against himself. What can he do? He goes to a Sage who will dissolve his vow, “but the speech of Sages is healing. Rebbi Eudaimon in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Is it not enough what the Torah forbade you that you want to forbid other things for yourself? “To forbid a prohibition”.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements.” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily, and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.

If his foot was cut off, from above the joint there is no “decay”, from below the joint there is “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon: If he bound from below the joint as attachment? He said to them, if it were so, even if it was not cut I should consider it as if cut and it should be an attachment! Since it is connected to him, it forms one body. If there is something missing, can it have “decay”? Let us hear from the following: If it is imcomplete, there is no “decay”, it does not require the surrounding earth, and it is not part of a row of graves. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, how much must be missing that it have no “decay”? Might it follow what we have stated there: “That he will die if it was removed.” Is it the same here? Think of it, if the esophagus was perforated, nothing was missing but he could not survive. You have only the following: If his foot was cut off, from below the joint there is “decay”, from above the joint there is no “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him.

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh. Rebbi Yose asked: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person, that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

“If he allots her to his son;” with [the girl’s] agreement. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no agreement here. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said so, the statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say the statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, is he not a minor? “If he allots her to his son;” with [the latter’s] agreement. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he allots her to his minor or adult son, with or without the latter’s agreement. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he allots her only to his adult son with the latter’s agreement.

Rebbi Yose asked: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? For Rebbi Abun it is obvious that he becomes a man retroactively, so certainly also for the future, for he explains the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Why does Rebbi Yose not explain the position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish by Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah since he asked, when they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? Rebbi Mana said, because he had difficulty. Rebbi Yose asked before me: When they remained until the time of indicators, does he retroactively become a man or from that time onward? One understands the case of a widow. But a divorcee? Explain it if he copulated with her after he became an adult and divorced her. Ḥalîṣah? Explain it if he copulated with her, died, and the [adult] brothers performed ḥalîṣah; she had ḥalîṣah because of him. In that case, even if he was younger than nine [years]! Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is correct. But because in all cases one stated “nine”, one stated this with them.

Samuel said, if somebody take a small gold vessel and it be snatched, who is responsible for it? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is at Tyre or a similar place, at Caesarea or a similar place. But here, so far it usually would be recovered.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If two fields were involved, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with the intent of taking possession of the one in Galilee, or the one in Galilee with the intent of taking possession of the one in Judea, he took possession. But in [the case of] property of a proselyte he did not acquire even the boundary strip between them. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to acquire starting from the boundary strip and below? Rav Ḥisda said, property of a proselyte which he took possession of in the North with the intent of also acquiring that in the South, or in the South with the intent of acquiring also that in the North, but did not have the intent of acquiring the strip in the middle, he did not acquire unless he also intended to acquire the middle part. A baraita disagrees with Rav Ḥisda: If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his property, if one takes possession of the ground he is obligated for everything. If he took possession of standing grain, he is obligated for fallen stalks, forgotten sheaves, and peah but freed from tithes. Does not the air separate between stalks? There, we have stated: “If he tore off anything connected to the ground, he took possession.” Samuel said, he took possession only of that leaf. But did we not state: “If it was connected to the ground and he tore off anything, he took possession”? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it: Samuel will agree, for proselyte’s property.

HALAKHAH: “Just as there is cheating in trade,” etc. “One may not put on make-up.” Rebbi Eudaimon the salt dealer was mollifying his spread. Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, did we not state: “one may not put on make up”? His word implies that there is make-up on food. Rebbi Ze‘ira was working with flax. He went to Rebbi Abbahu and asked him, may I make my work look good? He told him, go and apply all you know. Rebbi Abbahu was working on those shawls. He came to ask Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, how am I with those shawls? He told him, go and apply all you know. Rebbi Abba painted a bathtub. Rebbi Jacob from Emmaus stated: What means: “one may not put on make up”? One may not say to him, paint yourself.

HALAKHAH: “A person may not open,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa moved a preparer of fried food from one stall to another stall. One preparer of fried food was dwelling below [the apartment of] Rebbi Eudaimon the brother of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Aḥa passed by and did not object. He said, the rabbis are passing by and do not object. Rebbi Aḥa got angry with him. Rebbi Eudaimon the brother of Rebbi Yose became seriously ill. Rebbi Yose came to visit him. He said, I shall go and ask him. He went and said, if a court had mercy on somebody would the court prepare shrouds for him?

HALAKHAH: “A person may not open,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa moved a preparer of fried food from one stall to another stall. One preparer of fried food was dwelling below [the apartment of] Rebbi Eudaimon the brother of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Aḥa passed by and did not object. He said, the rabbis are passing by and do not object. Rebbi Aḥa got angry with him. Rebbi Eudaimon the brother of Rebbi Yose became seriously ill. Rebbi Yose came to visit him. He said, I shall go and ask him. He went and said, if a court had mercy on somebody would the court prepare shrouds for him?

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If two fields of a proselyte were involved, with a boundary strip in between. If he cut off from one of them with the intent of taking possession also of the other but not the boundary strip in between, the one was acquired by him but not the other. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to acquire starting [from] the boundary strip and below? Rav Ḥisda said, property of a proselyte which he took possession of in the North by cutting off with the intent of also acquiring the one to the South, but did not have the intent of acquiring the strip in the middle, he acquired the one to the North but not the one to the South. There, we have stated: “If it was connected to the ground and he cut off anything, he acquired.” Samuel said, he acquired only what he cut off. Rebbi Eudaimon the Emigrant said, this was said concerning the property of a proselyte. Rav Ḥisda said, Rebbi Isaac: It was reported that this was said concerning the property of a proselyte, so it should present no difficulty for Samuel.

Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, only if at the end there be sustenance for twelve months. But the other said, even from the start. If there was not sustenance for all of them for twelve months but they increased it so that how there is sustenance for all of them for twelve months? Rebbi Immi the Babylonian said, let us hear from the following: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property. So much more, if they increased it, they should be able to divide it. If there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months? Rebbi Eudaimon said, let us hear from the following: “If the orphans said, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar, one does not listen to them.” Rav Ḥisda asked: if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months? But this means, only if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months, except for ketubah of the wife, except for the sustenance of the widow, except for the dowries of the daughters, except for loans by document, except for loans by witnesses, except for her burial. The widow and the daughters are of equal rank. The widow and the sons are of equal rank. The widow does not push the daughters aside and the daughters do not push the widow aside. Sometimes the widow pushes the daughters out by means of the sons. Just as the widow pushes out the daughters by means of the sons, should the widow not push out the sons? She might claim her ketubah and lose her right to sustenance.

Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said: He who enters the synagogue and finds them standing and praying; if he knows that he could start and finish before the reader starts, so that he may answer “Amen”, he may pray, otherwise he should not pray. About which “Amen” did the speak? Two Amoraïm, one says the Amen of “the Holy King”, the other says the Amen of “Who listens to prayer.” On weekdays.

Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

HALAKHAH: “All those stoned are hanged, the words of Rebbi Eliezer,” etc. It was stated: “Adding his own height, these are five.” Here you say, adding his own height, these are five. But for a pit in matters of damages, you say even ten handbreadths. One cannot compare one who falls consciously, and one who falls accidentally. Rebbi Jonathan ben Ḥali, Rebbi Eudaimon the son of Rebbi Tabi’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Josia: Those who throw down an ox with all their might do not cause any of its limbs to break. In the days of Rebbi Phineas they threw down an ox with all their might. He told them, By yourlives, free it. They freed it, it got up and fled. He said, praised be He Who selected the Sages and their pronouncements, for they say, those who throw down an ox with all their might not cause any of its limbs to break.

It is written: He went and worshipped other powers and prostrated himself before them, and to the sun, and to the moon. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is not said to the sun but and to the sun. That is not principle and detail but addition. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina objected before Rebbi Ze`ura; is it not written any which have fins and scales, and any which do not have fins and scales? Then this is not principle and detail but additions since there is written and? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, anywhere I am encountering and, I am deleting it. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, I would have said that anything in the oceans is forbidden, what is in barrels and vivaria should be permitted. The verse says, and anything which lives in water, an addition.

HALAKHAH: “What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman,” etc. Cahana said, is it impossible that there was knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon objected before Rebbi Mana: Could that be for the teachers? He told him, we have a problem with those entering and you bring us teachers? What about it? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, commandments, commandments. Since commandments mentioned there are about fixed-value [offerings], here also about fixed-value [offerings].

HALAKHAH: “Proclos ben Ploslos asked,” etc. Where do we hold? If he asked him about practice in the bath he should have answered; if he did not ask him about practice in the bath he should not have answered. As Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One asks about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. As when Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to bathe with Rebbi Meïr, he asked him, may one rinse? He told him, it is forbidden. May one dry himself with a towel? He told him, it is forbidden. But did not Samuel ask Rav, may one say “Amen” at a dirty place? He told him, it is forbidden, and it is forbidden that I told you that it is forbidden. It was found stated, one asks about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, he asked him about practice in the bath but it is not done to answer in the bath. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he asked him about practice in the bath but the steam in the bath is bad for the teeth. The colleagues, Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name if Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He answered him in an evasive answer, for he could have replied about Baal Peˋor whose worship only consists in exposure and defecation. What about it? What is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as divinity is not forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “They are not liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple,” etc. Cahana said, is it impossible that there was knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon objected before Rebbi Mana: Could that be for the teachers? He told him, we have a problem with those entering and you bring us teachers? What about it? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, commandments, commandments. Since commandments mentioned there are about fixed-value [offerings], here also about fixed-value [offerings].

HALAKHAH: “How is red,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia: Like blood of a wound which was hit a second time. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies this, “red like blood from a wound.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman and Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa were sitting together when a man passed by them. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman. Does he disagree? If he would be hit a second time, it would be like menstrual blood.

HALAKHAH: “How is red,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia: Like blood of a wound which was hit a second time. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies this, “red like blood from a wound.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman and Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa were sitting together when a man passed by them. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman. Does he disagree? If he would be hit a second time, it would be like menstrual blood.

“And like mixed wine.” Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: As one sees a cup of mixed wine from the outside. They wanted to say, in a Tiberian cup. Rebbi Eudaimon from Sepphoris said before Rebbi Mana: As in a small phial whose walls do not cast a shadow. Samuel said, anybody who has no experience in seeing kinds of pure blood should not judge kinds of impure blood. Rav said, only if he is competent about them and their names. The words of Rebbi Joḥanan say so: I know all kinds of pure blood and of impure blood. The pure is the most red; the impure is like earth water. “If he has no experience,” therefore, if he has experience he can judge it. In addition, from what we have stated: clear but not turbid. Rebbi Ḥanina used it turbid. They said before Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Ḥanina uses it turbid, but you said, not turbid. He said to them, Rebbi Ḥanina drinks old [wine], Rebbi Joḥanan does not drink old [wine], Rebbi Ḥanina drinks oldest [wine]. Rebbi Hoshaiah said: Since Rebbi Hoshaiah’s eye is full of happenings, even turbid is not disqualified for him. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Ḥanina estimated with a lump of earth. Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Since we know that Rebbi Ḥanina is competent, do we follow his precedents? Rebbi Ḥanina was living in Sepphoris, they brought cases before him and he decided on the basis of three precedents. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were there but he did not invite them to sit with him. They said, the old man is a Sage since his irons are sharp! Once he invited them to sit with him. They said, for what reason do you take notice of us this time? He said, so should come over me if I had not heard every single case from Rebbi in theory as many times as there are hairs on my head, and in a practical way three times; but the present case did come before Rebbi only twice. Therefore, I adjoined you with me.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman learned from Rebbi Eleazar the kinds of pure blood. Does this mean, not the impure kinds? But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman? But one who learns one kind, learns at the same time the other kind. Isaac bar Jonathan and Rav Huna were sitting together when a woman came and asked them. Isaac bar Jonathan said to her, did you see it more smoky than that? Rav Huna said to him, so says Rav: Instruct according to what comes before you! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: A number of chests full of problems came before Rebbi Ḥanina and about what came before him, he did pronounce.