everybody

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

HALAKHAH: One verse says, but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says, and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be, etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?

They said to him: What to do with people who did not bring their knives with them? He told them, I was informed of the practice, but I forgot. But let Israel act; if they are not prophets they are descendants of prophets. Then everybody whose Passover sacrifice was a lamb stuck them in its fleece, for a kid goat he bound them to its horns; it turned out that the Passover sacrifices brought their knives with them. When he saw the action he remembered the practice. He told them, this is what I heard from Shemaya and Avtalion.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

Everybody agrees that “on it” means “in contact”. Where do they disagree? About “on”. Abba Shaul says, on the array, near the array. But the rabbis say, on the array, on top of the array. It turns out that Abba Shaul parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and the rabbis Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi says, even if he made them two arrangements of fourteen, one considers the upper one as nonexistent and the lower ones are qualified. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Abba Shaul use in the method of Rebbi Meïr for the table.

“If the skins of the Pesaḥ sacrifices of five groups were intermingled and a wart was found on one of them, all of them have to be brought to the place of burning, but they are not liable to bring a Second Pesaḥ.” They wanted to say that this is Rebbi Nathan’s. Explain it following everybody, {they made it} like one which has become impure by a doubt of a grave of the abyss. Following Rebbi Nathan would he have poured the blood?

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevices, it does not create a grave of the abyss.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.

The waiter who ate the volume of an olive when he was near the oven, if he is intelligent he fills his belly from it. If they want to honor him, they come and eat with him near the oven; otherwise they give him his part and he eats at his place. There, they are saying, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since they did not hear what Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Issy, Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that at the start they may split, at the end they may not split. Where do they disagree? When they were sitting and a beam cracked over them. Rebbi Simeon says, part of them remove themselves and eat at another place, but the rabbis say, no part of them may remove themselves and eat at another place.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

“And a purification offering whose owner died,” [has to die. Parallel to what] Rebbi Hila said in the name of Samuel, If the owner died on the Thirteenth, its body is offered as a well-being sacrifice. Why did he {not} say, on the Fourteenth? Everybody agrees that the body of any {animal} due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ, is not offered as a well-being sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One does not buy Sabbatical [produce] with tithe money.” Rebbi Yose said, that is a disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, that is the opinion of everybody. The eaters of heave are careful. Rebbi Ḥananiah objected before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state: “If they were mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of Cohanim they should eat.” And we have stated on that, they should be eaten following the more stringent rules. He said to him, eaters of the Pesaḥ in its time are as careful as the eaters of heave. You should know this since we have stated: “One roasts meat, onion, or egg only that they should be roasted“, but we have stated: “One lowers the Pesaḥ into the oven at nightfall.”

A non-Cohen who removed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods.

HALAKHAH: They shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; I could think, two hundred. Rebbi Aqiba said, anywhere you could understand many or you could understand few, if you took the many you took nothing, if you took few you took. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, two measures; one finite, the other infinite. Everybody measures with the finite measure, but nobody measures with the infinite measure. Rebbi Nehemiah said, does the verse come to open or to lock in? It does not come to lock in but to open. If you are saying days are ten, they could be 100 or 200 or 1’000 or 10’000. But if you say days are two, you did unlock. Rebbi Muna said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah. Days are two. I could think that days are many. If they are many, why is it said, many? Therefore the verse only spoke of few days. How much are they? It means two; many are three. I could think that many (days) means ten. It says days and it says many. Since the minimum of days are two, so for many, the minimum of many are three. I could think that two and three make five. But is it said, days [and many]? It only is said, many days. How is this? These many should be more than two. How many are they? It implies three.

MISHNAH: Why did they need this? Because once the moon shone and they thought that it dawned to the East; they slaughtered the daily sacrifice and had to bring it outside to the place of burning. Then they brought the Cohen to the place of immersion. This was the rule in the Temple: Everybody who spread his legs needed immersion; and everybody who urinated needed sanctification of hands and feet.

MISHNAH: Why did they need this? Because once the moon shone and they thought that it dawned to the East; they slaughtered the daily sacrifice and had to bring it outside to the place of burning. Then they brought the Cohen to the place of immersion. This was the rule in the Temple: Everybody who spread his legs needed immersion; and everybody who urinated needed sanctification of hands and feet.

Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them. The dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive.

Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them. The dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive.

Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them. The dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive.

Ten times did the High Priest pronounce the Name on the Day of Atonement: Six times with the bull, and three with the he-goat, and once with the lots. Those near were falling on their faces, those farther away were saying “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”. These and those did not move away from there before they forgot it. This is My Name forever, “this is My Name to conceal.” In earlier times he was saying it aloud. Since the lawless increased, he said it softly. Rebbi Tarphon said, I was standing in a row with my brothers the Cohanim and turned my ear towards the High Priest, when I heard him mixing it with the song of the Cohanim. In earlier times it was given to everybody. Since the lawless increased, it was given only to qualified ones.

Everybody agrees that if he brought them inside one by one, he atoned, but he transgresses because of unnecessary entry. About which one does he transgress? The colleagues say, about the last one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to enter and you are saying so? But it is about the first one. There, we have stated: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable.” About which one is he liable? The colleagues say, about the first one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to leave and you are saying so? But it is about the last one.

Everybody agrees about the bull of the anointed and the community that it need not touch. Where do they disagree? About the bull and the he-goat of the day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, it needs to touch. There are Tannaim: it does not need to touch. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome full of drops of blood. I said, these are of the blood sprinkled on it on the Day of Atonement. This implies that it needs to touch. [Even if you say that it does not need to touch], (but) if it touched, it touched.

From where that he is required to pour out? The verse says, he shall give of the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat, when they are mixed. I could think each one by itself, the verse says, Aaron shall atone on its corners once yearly, he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Or should we say, the bull’s blood once yearly, not twice yearly? Rebbi Ismael stated, from the blood of the atoning purification offering, he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Everybody agrees that for the seven sprinklings downward he has to pour, for it is written seven, not fourteen.

The colleagues say, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other. Everybody agrees about the bull of the Anointed or the community, unless there be one giving of each of them. The colleagues say, qualified parts which were mixed up with disqualified parts, only if there was a giving of the qualified. Where do they disagree? About the blood of two purification sacrifices which were mixed up. Rebbi says, I am saying one investigates the blood; if there is enough for one giving for each one it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. But the Sages say, even if there is only one giving [for both of them] it is qualified. In Rebbi’s opinion, there is a measure for givings, in the Sages’ opinion there is no measure for givings. This implies, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other.

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden] altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers.

MISHNAH: He handed him over to the one who led him. Everybody is qualified to lead him, but the High Priests made it an institution that they did not let an Israel lead him. Rebbi Yose said, it happened that Arsela from Sepphoris led it, and he was an Israel.

Aaron comes to the tent of Meeting. From where does he come? From reading the Chapter. Where does he go to? To remove the cup and the pan. It is written: He leaves and brings his elevation sacrifice and the people ’s elevation sacrifice, and you are saying so? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everybody agrees that the removal of cup and pan follows after the daily evening offering? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the entire Chapter is written in order except for this verse. Rebbi Yose said, even this is written in order. Aaron comes to the tent of Meeting. From where does he come? From the first sanctification which he encounters. Where does he go to? To the last sanctification. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Why do we not say, except the last sanctification? He answered him, there is a difference since it is written he comes, (he leaves),he takes off the linen garments. Why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he could undress what he was not wearing? Then why is it written, which he wore? It brackets undressing and dressing. Since dressing requires sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing requires sanctification of hands and legs. Rebbi Eleazar said, there is another service for which he officiates in white garments. What is it? It is removal of cup and pan. Rebbi Joḥanan says, everybody agrees that the removal of cup and pan follows after the daily evening offering.

Aaron comes to the tent of Meeting. From where does he come? From reading the Chapter. Where does he go to? To remove the cup and the pan. It is written: He leaves and brings his elevation sacrifice and the people ’s elevation sacrifice, and you are saying so? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everybody agrees that the removal of cup and pan follows after the daily evening offering? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the entire Chapter is written in order except for this verse. Rebbi Yose said, even this is written in order. Aaron comes to the tent of Meeting. From where does he come? From the first sanctification which he encounters. Where does he go to? To the last sanctification. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Why do we not say, except the last sanctification? He answered him, there is a difference since it is written he comes, (he leaves),he takes off the linen garments. Why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he could undress what he was not wearing? Then why is it written, which he wore? It brackets undressing and dressing. Since dressing requires sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing requires sanctification of hands and legs. Rebbi Eleazar said, there is another service for which he officiates in white garments. What is it? It is removal of cup and pan. Rebbi Joḥanan says, everybody agrees that the removal of cup and pan follows after the daily evening offering.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between a First Adar and a Second Adar is the reading of the Esther scroll and gifts to the poor”. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, also proclamations regarding sheqalim and kilaim are between them. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. Did they not say,. one proclaims about sheqalim, so that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time? If you would say on the First Adar, there still would be sixty days {left} in the year. Did they not say, also one goes to inspect for kilaim, not that the plants should be recognizable? If you would say in the First Adar, they still would be small.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Three contributions are mentioned in the paragraph, the contribution for the bases, the contribution for sheqalim, and the contribution for the Sanctuary. Speak to the Children of Israel, they shall take for me a contribution, that is the contribution for the bases. From any man of goodwill take my contribution, this refers to the contribution for sheqalim. This is the contribution which you shall take from them, that is the contribution for the Sanctuary. The contribution for the Sanctuary is for the Sanctuary, they may use it in any way they want. The contribution for sheqalim is for sacrifices, they may use it in any way they want, so that everybody’s part of it be the same. The contribution for the bases [is for the bases], the rich may not increase and the poor may not decrease. Rebbi Abun said, also in this paragraph are three contributions mentioned.

“On the fifteenth of this month one reads the Esther scroll in fortified places.” But did not Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, say: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading? It only comes to teach you that (the obligations apply to the Second Adar) [all obligations which apply to the Second Adar apply to the First Adar.] Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa, it only is reasonable for the past, not for the future; as it was stated, at a place where one is used to read it both days one reads it both days. He said to him, I also am of this opinion. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. If one read it on the Fourteenth and then wants to read it on the Fifteenth, would one not listen to him? If you are saying otherwise, you would eliminate the time of the fortified places with your hands.

What text implies this? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, all ears that touch the ground are for the poor.” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yose said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.

“Rebbi Jehudah said:, testified” etc. Rebbi Berekhiah said, the reason of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is, this they shall give, twelve tribes shall give. Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav Hamnuna: So answer the Sages to Rebbi Jehudah. A private purification sacrifice is let to die; a public purification sacrifice is not left to die. A private flour offering is brought totally, but no public flour offering is brought totally. This is difficult, how can one argue with a person about something with which he does not agree? “For no public purification sacrifice is left to die; Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall be left to die.” And he objects to them, are these not private flour offerings? They answer him, from the moment when it is delivered to the public, it is treated as a public offering. It is written, everybody being counted, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, the other one said, everyone being counted shall give. He who said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, supports Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai; he who said, everyone being counted shall give, supports Ben Kovri.

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.

“He who gives a tetradrachma to receive back a sheqel is liable for two agios.” Rebbi Eleazar said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, as Rebbi Meïr said, one for the sheqel which he gives and one for the tetradrachma which he takes. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion, one for the sheqel which he [gives, one for the sheqel which he] takes, and one for the words of the Torah. In Rav’s opinion, are there three agios? There came Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: There are three agios, one for the sheqel which he gives, one for the sheqel which he takes, and one for the words of the Torah.

“If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since Rebbi Simeon said, sancta for whose alienation he is responsible are like his own property. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, because of an instituted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion is understandable; “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim.” Is that Rebbi Simeon’s? Even though the city dwellers agreed to pay, Temple property cannot be released without an oath.

MISHNAH: If somebody collects coins and says, “these are for my sheqel,” the House of Shammai say, the excess is gift, but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane. “That I shall take from these for my sheqel,” they agree that the excess is profane. “These are for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is gift, “that I shall take from these for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is profane. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the difference between sheqalim and a purification offering? It is that sheqalim have a fixed value and a purification offering has no fixed value. Rebbi Jehudah said, sheqalim also have no fixed value. When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics, they continued to give sela`im, they continued to give minted coins, they wanted to give denars. Rebbi Simeon said, anyhow everybody gave the same, but for a purification offering, one brings for a tetradrachma, another for two, and still another for three.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

It is written: This they shall give, everybody who violated the Commandments. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, because they sinned in the middle of the day they shall give half a sheqel; but the other said, because they sinned in the sixth hour they shall give half a sheqel; which is worth six grams. Rebbi Joshua the son of Rebbi Neḥemiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Because they transgressed the Ten Commandments, each of them shall give ten gerah. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver; each of them shall redeem his firstborn with twenty pieces of silver. Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Levi: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver and each of them received a minted coin, each of them shall give a minted coin as his sheqel.

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

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.”

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.”

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.”

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 `omer, and the Two Breads., and the shew-bread.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated: “All private and public sacrifices come from the Land and from outside the Land, from new or old [grain], except for `omer and the Two Breads, which only come from new grain and from the Land.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated: “There are ten levels of holiness. The Land of Israel is holier than other lands; and what is its holiness? That one brings from it the `omer, first fruits, and the Two Breads, which cannot be from other lands.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Ismael says, since sowing is a voluntary act, also harvesting is a voluntary act. This excludes harvesting the `omer, which is a commandment.” Who is the Tanna of “the watchmen for aftergrowth in the sabbatical year take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge”? Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. If one would not find in Syria,.one would bring from the aftergrowth in the Land of Israel. Could one sow from the start for the `omer? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, would he not take the fistful for leftovers than cannot be eaten? He said to him, it has a status like the five kinds which can be brought in impurity but may not be eaten in impurity.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They disagree about one who gives his property to the Temple. But if he gives his flock to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the altar. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Where do they disagree? About one who gives his flock to the Temple, but if he gave his property to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the upkeep of the Temple. The opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira can be understood. It is difficult for Rebbi Abba. Is an animal not for the altar? An animal is for the altar. But why did this man not specify? It is as if he said, it only should be for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference. The disagreement is both about one who gives his property to the Temple as about one who gives his flock to the Temple.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They disagree about one who gives his property to the Temple. But if he gives his flock to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the altar. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Where do they disagree? About one who gives his flock to the Temple, but if he gave his property to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the upkeep of the Temple. The opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira can be understood. It is difficult for Rebbi Abba. Is an animal not for the altar? An animal is for the altar. But why did this man not specify? It is as if he said, it only should be for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference. The disagreement is both about one who gives his property to the Temple as about one who gives his flock to the Temple.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it.” It was stated: One has to renew something in it. The colleagues say, one hand-breadth; Rebbi Yose says, anything. He who says anything, but along the entire length. Is it the same with an old mazzah? Is an old mazzah a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he was not careful about it. A sukkah of shepherds, a sukkah of potters is qualified. A sukkah of Samaritans, if it is made according to the rules is qualified, not according to the rules is disqualified.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is [four] wide. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements. But was not Rebbi Jeremiah {saying} in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is four wide? Therefore if they have been polished for implements everybody agrees that it is permitted. Since Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, if he used steps of ladders for roofing it is disqualified, and they are saying that he ruled according to Rebbi Meïr, this implies that both cases are the same. Since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements, therefore if it is four {hand-breadths} wide everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Now Rebbi Yasa ruled at the big assembly that one may use a cross-beam for the thatched roof, and they said that he ruled following Rebbi Jehudah, this implies that both cases are the same.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is [four] wide. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements. But was not Rebbi Jeremiah {saying} in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is four wide? Therefore if they have been polished for implements everybody agrees that it is permitted. Since Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, if he used steps of ladders for roofing it is disqualified, and they are saying that he ruled according to Rebbi Meïr, this implies that both cases are the same. Since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements, therefore if it is four {hand-breadths} wide everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Now Rebbi Yasa ruled at the big assembly that one may use a cross-beam for the thatched roof, and they said that he ruled following Rebbi Jehudah, this implies that both cases are the same.

HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If put on the ground, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If it sails, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba. But we must hold when it is in port.

A ram’s horn of idolatry or a seduced city. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is qualified. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is disqualified. Everybody agrees about a lulav that it is disqualified. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a lulav? Rebbi Yose said, about a lulav it is written: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Not from what is forbidden for usufruct. But here, a day of horn blowing it shall be for you. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation by the thing itself. But here he fulfills his obligation by the sound. Is there a sound which is forbidden for usufruct?

He who makes a lulav for himself says, praise to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a lulav. For another, to make a lulav in his name. When he takes it he says, praise to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about taking the lulav. If he prayed with it he says, praise to Him Who let us live, and kept us, and let us reach this time. He says the benediction every time when he takes it. How does one recite the benediction for the Ḥanukkah light? Rav said, praised to Him who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us the commandment [to kindle] the light of Ḥanukkah. Everybody agrees that on the first day he says, about taking the lulav. What do they disagree about? The remaining days. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about taking the lulav. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, about commandments of the Elders. What did Rav say for the lulav? Since for Ḥanukkah which is from their words he is saying, about the commandment of the light of Ḥanukkah, for lulav which is from the Torah not so much more? What did Rebbi Joshua ben Levi say on Ḥanukkah? Since for lulav which is from the Torah he is saying, about commandments of the Elders, for Ḥanukkah which is from their words not so much more? The only problem is, what did Rebbi Joḥanan say on Ḥanukkah?

Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows the Elders of Galilea, for the Elders of Galilea say, it is forbidden to hand over food for two meals to a person suspect in matters of Sabbatical. Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it as opinion of everybody, in case that etrogim are sold at an elevated price. As the following: The cedrats were scarce there when Rav Naḥman bar Jacob gave an etrog as gift to his son and told him, if you have acquired it and fulfilled its obligation, return it to me.

MISHNAH: Originally the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven {days} and in the country one day. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav be taken in the country for seven {days} as remembrance of the Temple, and that the day of waving be entirely forbidden. If the first day of Tabernacles is a Sabbath, everybody brings their lulav to the synagogue. The next day they come in the morning and everybody recognizes his own and takes it, since they said that nobody can fulfill his obligation with another person’s lulav on the first day of Tabernacles; but on the other days of the holiday a person can fulfill his obligation with another person’s lulav. Rebbi Yose says, if somebody forgot and took the lulav into the public domain on the first day of Tabernacles which is a Sabbath he is not liable since he took it out with permission.

MISHNAH: Originally the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven {days} and in the country one day. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav be taken in the country for seven {days} as remembrance of the Temple, and that the day of waving be entirely forbidden. If the first day of Tabernacles is a Sabbath, everybody brings their lulav to the synagogue. The next day they come in the morning and everybody recognizes his own and takes it, since they said that nobody can fulfill his obligation with another person’s lulav on the first day of Tabernacles; but on the other days of the holiday a person can fulfill his obligation with another person’s lulav. Rebbi Yose says, if somebody forgot and took the lulav into the public domain on the first day of Tabernacles which is a Sabbath he is not liable since he took it out with permission.

MISHNAH: How is the order of the lulav? Everybody brings their lulav to the Temple Mount; the beadles accept from them and arrange them on the roof of the stoa; but the Elders deposit theirs in the lodge. One teaches them to say, it should be a gift to anybody into whose hands my lulav will come. They come early and the beadles throw them before them, and they grab and hit one another. When the Court saw that it involves danger they instituted that each person should take it in his house.

HALAKHAH: Why non-sanctified? Even if it is sanctified! Did not Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena say in the name of Rebbi Yasa, you shall sanctify the altar; then the altar will be most holy. Since the altar only sanctifies with intention, so vessels should only sanctify with intention. Ḥizqiah said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for the sanctification of hands and feet become disqualified by staying overnight. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for Tabernacles become disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of the evil impression; but we do not know whether following Ḥizqiah or according to everybody’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The water for a deviant wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Abuna: anything of whose kind nothing possibly is for the altar cannot become disqualified by staying overnight.

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.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

HALAKHAH: “If they do not know him,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, so should the Mishnah be stated: Originally one accepted testimony about the new moon from everybody. If they do not know him, one sends another one with him to testify about him. Rebbi Yose said, even as in the Mishnah it is acceptable: If they do not know him, one sends another one with him to testify about him. Why? Because originally one accepted testimony about the new moon from anybody. May a single witness be believed? They gave you from your own. It should be logical that no witnesses should be needed. But they said that witnesses were needed, and they said that a single witness may be believed.

Could one witness be believed as two? How is this? If there were two, one whom everybody knows and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner teem up with one from the street to testify about him? Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: he and another cannot team up about the signature of the second witness. This is needed in case there were two, one whose signature everybody knows and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner be like anybody from the street to testify about him? In that case the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, this is correct. For example, two who came from a town most of whose inhabitants are Gentiles, like Hippos. One of whom everybody knows that he is Jewish and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner be like one from the street to testify about him? If you are saying yes, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Also here the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness.

Could one witness be believed as two? How is this? If there were two, one whom everybody knows and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner teem up with one from the street to testify about him? Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: he and another cannot team up about the signature of the second witness. This is needed in case there were two, one whose signature everybody knows and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner be like anybody from the street to testify about him? In that case the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, this is correct. For example, two who came from a town most of whose inhabitants are Gentiles, like Hippos. One of whom everybody knows that he is Jewish and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner be like one from the street to testify about him? If you are saying yes, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Also here the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness.

Could one witness be believed as two? How is this? If there were two, one whom everybody knows and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner teem up with one from the street to testify about him? Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: he and another cannot team up about the signature of the second witness. This is needed in case there were two, one whose signature everybody knows and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner be like anybody from the street to testify about him? In that case the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, this is correct. For example, two who came from a town most of whose inhabitants are Gentiles, like Hippos. One of whom everybody knows that he is Jewish and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner be like one from the street to testify about him? If you are saying yes, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Also here the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness.

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

“Powers” are counted as verses of kingdom, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they do not count. “Powers” and “kingdoms” are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Jehudah says, they do not. Sing to God, sing; sing to our King, sing, are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they are not. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, do they disagree about it and the sequel, or do they disagree about this text itself? Since it was stated, everybody agrees about God is King over nations that it is one, this implies that they disagree about it and the sequel. Lift, o gates, your heads, and be raised, eternal doors; etc., Lift, o gates, your heads, and rise, eternal doors, etc. The first is counted as one and the second as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose said, the first as two and the second as three.

At one place one blows, at one place one says musaf. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to the one who blows; there are Tannaim who state, to the one who says musaf. He who said, he goes to the one who blows, if there is no time left to blow; he who said, he goes to the one who says musaf, if there is time left to blow. Let us hear from the following, what Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: At one place one blows, at one place one says musaf, he goes to the one who blows and does not go to the one who says musaf. And who said the following? On a New Year’s Day which falls on a Sabbath, at one place one blows, at one place one says musaf, he goes to the one who says musaf and does not go to the one who blows. Why? Because everybody knows how to blow but not everybody known how to say musaf. Another explanation: A person frees another from his obligation in blowing; a person does not free another from his obligation in prayer. And is a New Year’s Day which falls on a Sabbath not a day where there is no time left to blow? And you are saying, he goes to the one who says musaf? This implies that they disagree.

At one place one blows, at one place one says musaf. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to the one who blows; there are Tannaim who state, to the one who says musaf. He who said, he goes to the one who blows, if there is no time left to blow; he who said, he goes to the one who says musaf, if there is time left to blow. Let us hear from the following, what Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: At one place one blows, at one place one says musaf, he goes to the one who blows and does not go to the one who says musaf. And who said the following? On a New Year’s Day which falls on a Sabbath, at one place one blows, at one place one says musaf, he goes to the one who says musaf and does not go to the one who blows. Why? Because everybody knows how to blow but not everybody known how to say musaf. Another explanation: A person frees another from his obligation in blowing; a person does not free another from his obligation in prayer. And is a New Year’s Day which falls on a Sabbath not a day where there is no time left to blow? And you are saying, he goes to the one who says musaf? This implies that they disagree.

“Everybody agrees that an egg of which a major part was laid before the start of the holiday may be eaten on the holiday”. Where do they disagree? If a minor part came out, where the House of Shammai say that it may be eaten, but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten. “ Just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden to be moved. If one was mixed with a hundred or a thousand, they are all forbidden”. How? Following him who said, if the preparation is in doubt it is forbidden; but him who said, if the preparation is in doubt it is permitted, here he agrees that it is forbidden. For wind-fall there is a doubt where it fell today or fell yesterday, but here one is forbidden and it is proof for all of them.

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

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: So is the Mishnah: Because it needs the shoe-maker’s form. Is the Mishnah Rebbi Eliezer’s? As we have stated there, “the shoe on the shoe-maker’s last, Rebbi Eliezer declares pure but the Sages declare impure.” It is the opinion of everybody. It is different here since he is like finishing an implement on the holiday. It was stated: One does not dismantle a shoe from the last on the holiday, but one dismantles a shoe from the last on the intermediate days of the holiday.

“ It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that there are two dishes. Where do they disagree? About the fish and the egg on it, where the House of Shammai are saying it is one dish while the House of Hillel are saying they are two dishes. Everybody agrees that if he applied the egg on salted fish, or cut leeks under the fish, or cooked two kinds in a pot, that they are counted as two dishes.” And practice follows the student.

HALAKHAH: The House of Shammai say, irregular leaning-on was permitted. But the House of Hillel say, irregular leaning-on was not permitted. What is irregular leaning-on? From the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira said, everybody agrees that he did not fulfill his obligation regarding the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease if he leaned on the day before; he fulfilled his obligation with voluntary well-being offerings for which he leaned on the day before. Where do they disagree? The festival well-being offerings. The House of Shammai treat them like voluntary well-being offerings; the House of Hillel treat them like the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Yasa said, that what you are saying, he did not fulfill his obligation regarding the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease if he leaned on the day before, {only} on time. If its time has passed it becomes like voluntary well-being offerings.

“One may make a pyre and warm himself by it.” This is everybody’s opinion on condition that there be a kettle by the pyre. One may explain it by another explanation: In the opinion of the House of Shammai, on condition that there be a kettle by the pyre. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, even if there is no kettle by the pyre.

Hot water heated on a holiday and similarly hot water heated on Friday for the Sabbath, Rav and Samuel, one said, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, while the other said, one uses it to wash his body limb by limb. We did not know who said what but since Samuel stated, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, it follows that it was [Rav] who said, one uses it to wash his entire body limb by limb. A philosopher asked Bar Qappara; Ablat asked Levi the eunuch: Is it permitted for drinking but forbidden for taking a bath? He told him, if you saw an eunuch embracing your wife, would you not feel badly about it? He said, yes. He asked him, can he squeeze her in any way? He said, that she should not get loose morals. He told him, here also that they should not get loose morals. After he left, his students told him, this one you pushed away with a stick; what do you answer us? He said to them: Is there not already written only what is being eaten by everybody, this alone may be made by you.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sharpen the knife on the holiday but he cleanses it on another.” Rav Ḥisda said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, it is everybody’s opinion, to remove the fat on it.

It was stated: One does not climb on a tree whether moist or dried-up. One understands moist; dried-up? So we are saying, it is forbidden to step on a twig on the Sabbath? Or does it follow Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr said, “a dried-up vine is forbidden but does not sanctify”? It is everybody’s opinion; they forbade the dried-up tree because of a moist tree. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi came running before Rav. He asked him, how did you come? He told him, [by] the warped date palm. He said to him, who permitted you?

“The only difference between holiday and Sabbath is preparation of food.” What is between them? Rav Ḥisda said, to sharpen the tip of the spit is between them. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, to make fire from wood is between them. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaiah: what is the matter? Is the matter to sharpen the tip of the spit? or is the matter to make fire from the stones? You only have the following: “One does not sharpen the knife but he cleanses it on another.” Rav Ḥisda said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, it is everybody’s opinion, to remove the fat on it.

HALAKHAH: “From when does one mention the Power of rains,” etc. The reason of Rebbi Eliezer, because these four kinds grow on water, they become attorneys for water. Another explanation, when the slave serves all his master’s needs he asks for his reward from him. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is it not that when the slave has served all his master’s needs and his master is satisfied with him that he asks his [sustenance] from him? Another explanation. The slave asks for his reward only close to the time when his reward is due. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, from the time one takes the lulav; Rebbi Joshua says, from the time he puts it down. In the opinion of the latter Tanna, the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in the first is his opinion in the latter. The argument of Rebbi Joshua is inverted. There, he says from the concluding holiday, but here he says, from the time he puts it down. Rebbi Mana says, because the entire day is qualified to take the lulav. Should he not mention in the evening? Not everybody is there. Then he should mention it in the morning. He would think that maybe they mentioned in the evening and he will mention. Since he sees that they do not mention in the first {prayer} but mention in the later {prayer}, he understands that they did not mention in the evening. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to him, so was your father Rebbi Jonah arguing it.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, as it was stated, “what is the time of rainfall? Rebbi Meïr says, the early one on the Third, the average one on the Seventh, and the late one on the Seventeenth. Rebbi Jehudah says, the early one on the Seventh, the average on on the Seventeenth, and the late one on the Twenty-third. Rebbi Yose said, the early one on the Seventeenth, the average one on the Twenty-third, and the late one on the Thirtieth day, since we find that particular people only start to fast on the New Moon of Kislev.” Rebbi Abbamari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said: everybody agrees that the Seventeenth is the time for the pleiads to disappear, since on it the Deluge came over the world. What is the reason? On this day all sources of the deep abyss were opened. Rebbi Abba bar Zamina, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows him who says, “on the Third of Marḥeshwan one prays for rain”. And why did he not say, following Rebbi Meïr? There are Tannaim who switch.

For four causes the rains fall down; because of violent men, because of noxious dew, and that the high country drink like the low country, and that everybody direct his eyes to Heaven. By the merit of three causes does rain fall. By the merit of the Land, by the merit of charity, and by the merit of sufferings; and all are in one verse: If for (charity) [the stick], if for the Land, if for (the stick) [for charity] you will find it.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

HALAKHAH: “On three occasions,” etc. One understands from three things. One understands that the bystanders (pray) [fast], and that they pray four times, and lifting of the hands is not during nighttime, only during daytime. Could one not lift his hands without praying? We find prayer without lifting of hands; we do not find lifting of hands without prayer. It was stated, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: “On three occasions,” etc. One understands from three things. One understands that the bystanders (pray) [fast], and that they pray four times, and lifting of the hands is not during nighttime, only during daytime. Could one not lift his hands without praying? We find prayer without lifting of hands; we do not find lifting of hands without prayer. It was stated, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

MISHNAH: The times of wood offerings of the priests and the people are nine. On the first of Nisan, the family Araḥ from the tribe of Judah. On the twentieth of Tammuz, the family of David from the tribe of Judah. On the fifth of Av, the family of Par`osh from the tribe of Judah. On the seventh, the family of Yonadav ben Rekhav. On the tenth, the family of Senaah from the tribe of Benjamin. On the fifteenth the family of Zatuel from the tribe of Judah, and with them priests and Levites and everybody who is unsure of his tribe. The families of the pestle stealers and the fig hackers on the twentieth. The family of Paḥat Moab from the tribe of Judah on the twentieth of Elul. The family of Adin from the tribe of Judah on the first of Tevet. The family of Parosh came a second time. On the first of Tevet was no bystanding since there was hallel, musaf, and wood offering.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

What are “the families of the pestle stealers and the fig hackers”? But when Jeroboam ben Nabat installed border guards on the roads which did not permit Israel to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, everybody who was qualified and sin-fearing in that generation brought his first fruits, put them in a basket, covered them with dried figs and took the pestle. He takes the basket on his shoulder and the pestle in his hand. When he reaches that guard-post they were asking him, where are you going? He answered him, I am only going to make these few dried figs into a single fig cake with this pestle in my hand. After he had passed this guard, he adorned them and brought them to Jerusalem. Why does one say, the family of Salmai the puller-down? But anybody who was volunteering logs and firewood for the altar brought wood and makes them into a kind of steps, assembles them into a kind of ladder, and puts them on his shoulder. When he reaches that guard he asks him, where are you going? He answers him, I am only going to bring two pigeon chicks from this dovecote over there using the ladder on my shoulder. After he had passed this guard, he disassembled {his package} and brought it to Jerusalem. Since they put themselves in danger for the meritorious deed that merited a good reputation in the world, and about them he says, the remembrance of the just is a blessing.

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya. Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading. It only comes to teach you that the obligations apply to the Second Adar. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa, it is only reasonable for the past; but for the future? And did we not state, at a place where one is used to read it on two days, one reads it on two days? He said to him, I also am of this opinion. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. If somebody read it on the Fourteenth and read it again on the Fifteenth, would one not listen to him? If you are saying so, with your hand you uproot the time of walled places.