forbade

As it was stated: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally it may not be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. When Rav was instructing his own group he said following Rebbi Meïr; in public he instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he explained to us following Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, in any case where for an intentional sin one is liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin for a purification offering, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both to him and to others. In any case where for an intentional sin one is not liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin no purification offering is due, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result unintentional it may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, what do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Rav Huna in the name of Rav, and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

“They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden; a dish which will deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish which improves the more it shrinks? For example cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of beets and heads of of leeks as dishes which improve the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found hot water and permitted it, eggs and forbade them. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like crab apples and they tasted delicious like sweetbread.

Mishnah: “What the people of Tiberias did,” etc. Originally they closed the conduit on Friday and they entered and bathed on the Sabbath. They were suspected of filling it with wood on Friday so it would burn continuously on the Sabbath; they forbade them bathing and permitted sweating. They were suspected of coming and bathing but saying “we were sweating.” They forbade bathing and sweating to them. If there were there two basins, one of sweet water and one of salt water. They were suspected of uncovering the planks and bathing in sweet water but saying, “we did bathe in salt water;” they forbade them everything. When they were fenced in they continuously permitted them more until they permitted them water in a cave and the hot springs of Tiberias, but they did not permit bringing towels. Who permitted the bringing of linen cloths? Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabia, as it was stated: Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabia permitted three things. He permitted seaweed, he permitted the balcony, and he permitted bringing linen cloths.

Mishnah: “What the people of Tiberias did,” etc. Originally they closed the conduit on Friday and they entered and bathed on the Sabbath. They were suspected of filling it with wood on Friday so it would burn continuously on the Sabbath; they forbade them bathing and permitted sweating. They were suspected of coming and bathing but saying “we were sweating.” They forbade bathing and sweating to them. If there were there two basins, one of sweet water and one of salt water. They were suspected of uncovering the planks and bathing in sweet water but saying, “we did bathe in salt water;” they forbade them everything. When they were fenced in they continuously permitted them more until they permitted them water in a cave and the hot springs of Tiberias, but they did not permit bringing towels. Who permitted the bringing of linen cloths? Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabia, as it was stated: Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabia permitted three things. He permitted seaweed, he permitted the balcony, and he permitted bringing linen cloths.

Mishnah: “What the people of Tiberias did,” etc. Originally they closed the conduit on Friday and they entered and bathed on the Sabbath. They were suspected of filling it with wood on Friday so it would burn continuously on the Sabbath; they forbade them bathing and permitted sweating. They were suspected of coming and bathing but saying “we were sweating.” They forbade bathing and sweating to them. If there were there two basins, one of sweet water and one of salt water. They were suspected of uncovering the planks and bathing in sweet water but saying, “we did bathe in salt water;” they forbade them everything. When they were fenced in they continuously permitted them more until they permitted them water in a cave and the hot springs of Tiberias, but they did not permit bringing towels. Who permitted the bringing of linen cloths? Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabia, as it was stated: Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabia permitted three things. He permitted seaweed, he permitted the balcony, and he permitted bringing linen cloths.

HALAKHAH: “In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

HALAKHAH: “In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

HALAKHAH: “In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

HALAKHAH: “In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

HALAKHAH: “In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

HALAKHAH: “In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

“Because the latter are not prepared,” and they are used only connected to the ground. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Originally all implements could be taken on the Sabbath. Because they were suspected of desecrating holidays and Sabbaths as it is written, at that time I saw in Jehudah that they were working wine presses on the Sabbath … and loading on donkeys, etc., they forbade them everything. After they were fenced in they continued to permit to them until they permitted them everything except the big saw and the blade of the plough. Rebbi Yose said, also the engraver’s stylo. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also the anchor.” “A mortar, if there is garlic in it one may take it, otherwise one may not take it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it is a small mortar used at table then it is like a bowl and one moves it on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they formulated before implements were permitted.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For the knife for circumcision one makes walls of people and brings it. There was a case for Bar Marinus. He asked Rebbi Simon who permitted. He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade. Rebbi Simon was offended. But was it not stated, if one asked a Sage who permitted, one may ask another one who might forbid? Rebbi Yudan said, the case was as follows: He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade, Rebbi Simon who permitted. Rebbi Immi was offended, following what was stated, if one asked a Sage who forbade, one may not ask another one who might permit.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For the knife for circumcision one makes walls of people and brings it. There was a case for Bar Marinus. He asked Rebbi Simon who permitted. He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade. Rebbi Simon was offended. But was it not stated, if one asked a Sage who permitted, one may ask another one who might forbid? Rebbi Yudan said, the case was as follows: He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade, Rebbi Simon who permitted. Rebbi Immi was offended, following what was stated, if one asked a Sage who forbade, one may not ask another one who might permit.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For the knife for circumcision one makes walls of people and brings it. There was a case for Bar Marinus. He asked Rebbi Simon who permitted. He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade. Rebbi Simon was offended. But was it not stated, if one asked a Sage who permitted, one may ask another one who might forbid? Rebbi Yudan said, the case was as follows: He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade, Rebbi Simon who permitted. Rebbi Immi was offended, following what was stated, if one asked a Sage who forbade, one may not ask another one who might permit.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rebbi Isaac’s street. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rebbi Joḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the dwellers in the alley be in error, lest they be intentional. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion did change. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Joḥanan annulled his rights. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rebbi Joḥanan and he carried. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this be so then the haters of Rebbi Joḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted.

Rebbi Ḥinena did not say so but: Rav went to a certain place; he saw a certain alley whose beam had been removed, and forbade it. Rav Ḥuna said to him, the date palm stands. Rav told him, the eyes of Rav Ḥuna are high, the eyes of Rav are not high; but I am forbidding it for them because of a beam, and the next Sabbath I am permitting it to them because of a lath, that they should know that if the palm tree were removed they would be forbidden to carry. Some want to say, that they should not think following Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.” And here he says so? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Jehudah treated it as a house.

If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have?

If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have?

MISHNAH: If a bolt is topped by a lock, Rebbi Eleazar forbids and Rebbi Yose permits. Rebbi Eleazar said, it happened at the synagogue of Tiberias that they used to permit it until Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and forbade it to them. Rebbi Yose says, they used to consider it forbidden when Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and permitted it to them. With a dragged bolt one locks at the Temple but not in the countryside, but the one left alone is forbidden here and there. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one left alone in the Temple and the dragged one in the countryside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer said, if slaughter which is work pushes the Sabbath aside, should not these, which are because of Sabbath rest, push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Joshua said to him, holiday is a counter example, where He permitted the work but forbade because of Sabbath rest. Rebbi Eliezer answered whim, what is this, Joshua? What proof is option for obligation?

“You shall deprive yourselves. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers. From where to add ṭevel? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.] I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes} the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.”

“You shall deprive yourselves. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers. From where to add ṭevel? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.] I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes} the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.”

“You shall deprive yourselves. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers. From where to add ṭevel? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.] I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes} the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.”

“You shall deprive yourselves. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers. From where to add ṭevel? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.] I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes} the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.”

Following Rebbi Ismael? It shall be for you an eternal law, in the Seventh Month He joined work and deprivation. Since the work which I forbade to you is work for which one is liable to extirpation, also deprivation which I forbade to you is deprivation for which one is liable to extirpation.

Following Rebbi Ismael? It shall be for you an eternal law, in the Seventh Month He joined work and deprivation. Since the work which I forbade to you is work for which one is liable to extirpation, also deprivation which I forbade to you is deprivation for which one is liable to extirpation.

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?

That is what is written, it was in the second year in the second month on the twentieth of the month, etc. And it is written, they travelled from the Eternal’s mountain a distance of three days. Rebbi Zacharia, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi: {a parable} like children who are freed from <school> (books) and leave to run. On that very day they desired a desire; up to a month, until it will come out of your noses. And the seven days of Miriam; Miriam was secluded outside the camp. And the 40 days of the scouts, they returned from scouting the Land at the end of 40 days. They walked and came to Moses and Aaron etc. They came and found them occupied with the rules for ḥallah and orlah. They said to them, you are not going to enter the Land and you are studying the rules for ḥallah and orlah? Immediately, the entire congregation raised their voices; the people cried in that night. He said to them, you cried before Me a pointless crying. By My life, in the future you shall cry a substantial crying. Crying she will cry in the night. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: It is written, Moses heard the people crying for its families, etc. About the six incest prohibitions which Moses forbade them.

The people of Bet Shean asked Rebbi Immi, may one take stones from one synagogue to build another synagogue? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Immi forbade it only to make them feel bad. Rebbi Gorion said, the people from Magdala asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: May one take stones from one village to build in another village? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Immi instructed, even from East to West is forbidden because of the destruction of that place. May one sell a synagogue to buy a school? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s word implies that it is permitted. For Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he burned the Eternal’s House, that is the Temple, and the king’s house, that is Sedecias’s palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem, these are the 480 synagogues which were in Jerusalem. As Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, each of which had a school and a Talmud study; [the school] for Bible and the Talmud study for Mishnah. Against all of them came Vespasian. And every large house he burned in fire, that is the study of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai where one was telling the great deeds of the Holy One, praise to Him, in the sense of tell please of the great deeds which Elisha accomplished. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: That you are saying about a private synagogue. But with a public synagogue it is forbidden; I am saying that one at the end of the world has part in it. But did we not state, “it happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq bought the synagogue of the Alexandrians and used it for all his needs”? The Alexandrians made it from their own. So far if it was built as a synagogue. If it was built as a court and he dedicated it, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “A qônam that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue.” This implies that if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it became sanctified. When is it sanctified, immediately [or] at the moment of use? Let us hear from the following: If one builds a chest for a scroll or makes ribands for a scroll. As long as it was not used for a scroll profane use is permitted; after it was used for the scroll private use is prohibited. Therefore, if these who were made for a scroll are not sanctified until used, this which was built as court not so much more? What is the rule for these if they were made for profane use? Since you are saying there, if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it is sanctified, so here if they were made for profane use and he dedicated them they are sanctified.

One understands pumped water. Rain water? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decided about rain water because it is like pumped water. Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi La: They stated this only on a holiday; therefore in the Sabbatical it is permitted. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden.

“One fixes the broken ones on the holiday.” If it is for the needs of the holiday, but anything not for the needs of the holiday is forbidden for an individual, however for the public even not for the needs of the holiday it is permitted. As the following: the baths of Sakuta were damaged on the holiday and Rebbi Abbahu permitted them to be repaired on the holiday. If it needs exertion and he planned it, we would not say so, only if he did not intend his work for the holiday. They said, if it is not done now it never will be done. The cauldron of Sepphoris was damaged on the holiday. The colleagues wanted to say that it is permitted from the following, “one repairs all defects in the public water system.” Rebbi Phineas said, Rebbi Jeremiah only forbade because of the rules of the hammer. The cemetery of Bar Meqatia was damaged on the holiday. Rav Ḥuna was of the opinion that it is permitted from the following: “and one looks after all public needs.” Rebbi Mana told him, but did not Rebbi Samuel state, “only to smooth its fissures.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel. They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If they are tightly planted everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob treats it as widely spaced, the rabbis treat it as tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if widely spaced it is forbidden to irrigate; may one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say that it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced it is forbidden; but is white dust not as if widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden. It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, <the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Eliezer Ben Jacob forbids.>”

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, If there were somebody who would vote with me, I would permit to sell firstling meat by the pound and I would permit to work on the intermediate days of the holiday. They only forbade to sell firstling meat by the pound so it should be sold cheaply; but they are tricky about it and selling it dearly. They only forbade to work on the intermediate days of the holiday so they should eat, and drink, and exert themselves in Torah; but they eat, and drink, and behave wantonly.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, If there were somebody who would vote with me, I would permit to sell firstling meat by the pound and I would permit to work on the intermediate days of the holiday. They only forbade to sell firstling meat by the pound so it should be sold cheaply; but they are tricky about it and selling it dearly. They only forbade to work on the intermediate days of the holiday so they should eat, and drink, and exert themselves in Torah; but they eat, and drink, and behave wantonly.

It was stated: The following are forbidden to the mourner all Seven {days}: Washing, anointing, wearing shoes, sexual relations, grooming, washing clothes, reading in the Torah, studying Midrash, practices, and homiletics, greeting, and working. Who stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire Seven? Rebbi Nathan. Something happened to Rebbi Immi; he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all Seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose; he sent to Rebbi Abba bar Cohen who said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Immi, he asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who instructed him “all Seven following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him, maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. And also from the following: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama, father of Rav Hoshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it. Rebbi Yose asked, which rabbis? The rabbis here or the rabbis in the South? If you say the rabbis of here, it is fine. If you would say the rabbis from the South, would he have asked minor authorities when greater ones were available to him? If you say the rabbis of the South, we would allow and they would forbid, as we have stated: “At a place where it is customary to bathe after a funeral, one may bathe; in the South one bathes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: He who permits that bath makes it like eating and drinking. That means, about a bath for pleasure. But a bath that is not for pleasure is permitted. Samuel bar Abba developed scab. They came and asked Rebbi Yasa, what is the rule, may he bathe? He said to them: If he does not bathe, would he not die? If he needs it, even on the Ninth of Av. If he needs it, even on Yom Kippur. They saw Rebbi Yose, son of Rebbi Ḥanina, immersing himself. They did not know whether it was for his emission, they did not know whether it was to cool down because bathing in cold water is not called bathing. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed following this statement.

Rav said: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother. His son’s wife is biblical. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rav said: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother. His son’s wife is biblical. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rav said: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother. His son’s wife is biblical. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rav said: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother. His son’s wife is biblical. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rebbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards He gave the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother. What is this about? His father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother. Should not his father’s mother be like his father-in-law’s mother? Should not his mother’s mother be like his mother-in-law’s mother? They forbade his father’s father’s wife because of his father’s mother. They forbade his mother’s father’s wife because of his mother’s mother. Should not his son’s son’s wife be like his wife’s son’s daughter? Should not his daughter’s son’s wife be like his wife’s daughter’s daughter?

Rebbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards He gave the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother. What is this about? His father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother. Should not his father’s mother be like his father-in-law’s mother? Should not his mother’s mother be like his mother-in-law’s mother? They forbade his father’s father’s wife because of his father’s mother. They forbade his mother’s father’s wife because of his mother’s mother. Should not his son’s son’s wife be like his wife’s son’s daughter? Should not his daughter’s son’s wife be like his wife’s daughter’s daughter?

MISHNAH: A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her. If she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court. And all who had wives who [subsequently] died may marry them. And to all who were married to others and were divorced or widowed, they can be married. All are permitted to their sons or brothers.

HALAKHAH: “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow”, etc. “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her.” I would say, that was his intention from the start. “If she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court”, because two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third. There, we have stated: “If somebody deposits fruit with another person, that one should not touch it even if it spoils. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of a court because one is obliged to return a find to its owners.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. What does one do with the money? Rav Jehudah said, the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ṭarphon. It is a condition that the members of the court cannot buy. Rebbi Aqiba said, Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Sabbatai asked: Here, you say, “if she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court,” and here, you say so? Rebbi Yose said, there, the buy could be in thirds, but here, two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third.

HALAKHAH: “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow”, etc. “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her.” I would say, that was his intention from the start. “If she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court”, because two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third. There, we have stated: “If somebody deposits fruit with another person, that one should not touch it even if it spoils. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of a court because one is obliged to return a find to its owners.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. What does one do with the money? Rav Jehudah said, the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ṭarphon. It is a condition that the members of the court cannot buy. Rebbi Aqiba said, Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Sabbatai asked: Here, you say, “if she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court,” and here, you say so? Rebbi Yose said, there, the buy could be in thirds, but here, two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third.

The argument of Rebbi Simeon seems to be inverted. There, he says, “he marries in levirate the one he wants and performs ḥalîṣah with the other,” and here, he says so? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, when I was still there, I learned the reason: There, the candidacy for two brothers-in-law does not interfere and one candidacy can be added to another, but here it is candidacy for one levir and no candidacy can come after a “bespeaking”. Rebbi Mattania said, are not sisters different from unrelated women? If you want a difficulty, find it in what Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of RavSheshet: They stated there that Rebbi Simeon forbade both of them. The argument of Rebbi Simeon seems to be inverted. There he says, both are forbidden, and here you says, both are permitted.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

MISHNAH: Ammonites and Moabites are eternally forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. Egyptians and Edomites are forbidden only for three generations, both males and females. Rebbi Simeon said, is it not an argument de minore ad majus? If He permitted the females immediately in a case where the males are eternally forbidden, should we not permit the females in a case where He forbade the males only for three generations? They said to him: If it is practice, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument. He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice. Bastards and Gibeonites are eternally forbidden, both males and females.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua agrees that if somebody says to another: “This field did belong to your father but I bought it from him,” that he is trustworthy since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that it did belong to [the second man’s] father and [the first] said, I bought it, he is not trustworthy.

MISHNAH: If a woman said, I was married but I am divorced, she is to be trusted, since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that she is married and she says, I am divorced, she is not trustworthy.

MISHNAH: 6: If a woman said, I was kidnapped but I am pure, she is to be trusted, since the mouth which forbade is the mouth which permits. But if there are witnesses that she was kidnapped and she says, I am pure, she is not trustworthy. If the witnesses came after she was married, she should not leave.

“If she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? It would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage … because a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce, is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. But he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children become bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

Who is the Tanna of “the gain should be given to the sacred fund”? Rebbi Meïr! For Rebbi Meïr said, one commits sacrilege with prohibitions. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If somebody made a vow [to forbid] a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands? Let us hear from the following: “If he said, this loaf shall be dedicated, if he or another person ate it, they committed sacrilege; therefore, it can be redeemed. But if he said, it is for me [as if dedicated], if he ate it he committed sacrilege on goodwill but others would not commit sacrilege.” He said only, if he ate it. Therefore, to warm his hands is permitted. The students of Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: That is if he said I shall not eat it nor taste it; if he forbade only eating to himself. But the question was, if somebody made a vow [to forbid] a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands?

Who is the Tanna of “the gain should be given to the sacred fund”? Rebbi Meïr! For Rebbi Meïr said, one commits sacrilege with prohibitions. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If somebody made a vow [to forbid] a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands? Let us hear from the following: “If he said, this loaf shall be dedicated, if he or another person ate it, they committed sacrilege; therefore, it can be redeemed. But if he said, it is for me [as if dedicated], if he ate it he committed sacrilege on goodwill but others would not commit sacrilege.” He said only, if he ate it. Therefore, to warm his hands is permitted. The students of Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: That is if he said I shall not eat it nor taste it; if he forbade only eating to himself. But the question was, if somebody made a vow [to forbid] a loaf to himself, can he use it to warm his hands?

The Mishnah [deals with the case] that the healer forbade his property on the sick person. But if the sick person forbade his property on the healer he sinned against himself.

The Mishnah [deals with the case] that the healer forbade his property on the sick person. But if the sick person forbade his property on the healer he sinned against himself.

“This, your house,” because of what do you catch him? Because of “your house,” “this”? If it collapsed and he himself rebuilt it, is it not “this”? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody said to his heirs, give a wedding house to my son or a widow’s house to my daughter, if it collapsed, the heirs are required to rebuild it.” There, we have stated: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, [the son] inherits. ‘During my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, [the son] does not inherit.” [Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, [the son] inherits; ‘after my death’, [the son] inherits?] What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose [ben Ḥanina] both say, ‘a qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade to him during his lifetime and after his death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Nedarim what we did not state in S̄ebuot: “A qônām that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is forbidden.” Because he said “this”. Therefore, if he had not said “this”, he would have forbidden to him both during his lifetime and after his death.

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to eat meat, he is permitted clear bouillon and coagulated fibers, but Rebbi Jehudah forbids. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Ṭarphon forbade to me eggs that were cooked in it. They said to him, that is correct; when? If he would say, that piece of meat [is forbidden] to me. In truth, if somebody forbids himself something by a vow and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden If somebody vows not to drink wine he is permitted a dish prepared with wine. If he said, a qônām that I shall not taste this wine, if it fell into a dish and it can be tasted, that is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vows not to eat meat,” etc. Rebbi Hila said: The moment he said “this one”, he forbade for himself it and its usufruct.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vows not to eat grapes,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a qônām for anything which usually is eaten and of which some derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted. What is an example? E. g., grapes and olives. And anything which usually is eaten but no derivative of which is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted. What is an example? E. g., mulberries. And anything which usually is not eaten and but a derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, he intended the derivative. What is an example? E. g., garden seeds that are not eaten.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vows not to eat grapes,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a qônām for anything which usually is eaten and of which some derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted. What is an example? E. g., grapes and olives. And anything which usually is eaten but no derivative of which is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted. What is an example? E. g., mulberries. And anything which usually is not eaten and but a derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, he intended the derivative. What is an example? E. g., garden seeds that are not eaten.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vows not to eat grapes,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a qônām for anything which usually is eaten and of which some derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted. What is an example? E. g., grapes and olives. And anything which usually is eaten but no derivative of which is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted. What is an example? E. g., mulberries. And anything which usually is not eaten and but a derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, he intended the derivative. What is an example? E. g., garden seeds that are not eaten.

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

HALAKHAH: “Earlier they said,” etc. That is, if she cannot bring proof for her assertion, it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. Rebbi Hila said, would it not be reasonable that a fellow should be apprehensive, and if he was a Cohen that she should be forbidden to eat heave? There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, and he permitted her to eat heave. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, my father knew the first and the last case. Soldiers entered the town. A woman came and said, a soldier embraced me and ejaculated semen between my knees. He permitted her to eat heave. There came a case before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele of a woman who said, my cowhand seduced me. He said to her, is the cowhand not forbidden? And he forbade her. Here, you say that he forbade her. There, you say that he permitted her. There, she came to forbid herself and he permitted her. But here, she came to permit herself and he forbade her.

HALAKHAH: “Earlier they said,” etc. That is, if she cannot bring proof for her assertion, it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. Rebbi Hila said, would it not be reasonable that a fellow should be apprehensive, and if he was a Cohen that she should be forbidden to eat heave? There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, and he permitted her to eat heave. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, my father knew the first and the last case. Soldiers entered the town. A woman came and said, a soldier embraced me and ejaculated semen between my knees. He permitted her to eat heave. There came a case before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele of a woman who said, my cowhand seduced me. He said to her, is the cowhand not forbidden? And he forbade her. Here, you say that he forbade her. There, you say that he permitted her. There, she came to forbid herself and he permitted her. But here, she came to permit herself and he forbade her.

HALAKHAH: “Earlier they said,” etc. That is, if she cannot bring proof for her assertion, it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. Rebbi Hila said, would it not be reasonable that a fellow should be apprehensive, and if he was a Cohen that she should be forbidden to eat heave? There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina, the colleague of the rabbis, and he permitted her to eat heave. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, my father knew the first and the last case. Soldiers entered the town. A woman came and said, a soldier embraced me and ejaculated semen between my knees. He permitted her to eat heave. There came a case before Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele of a woman who said, my cowhand seduced me. He said to her, is the cowhand not forbidden? And he forbade her. Here, you say that he forbade her. There, you say that he permitted her. There, she came to forbid herself and he permitted her. But here, she came to permit herself and he forbade her.

Any expressions can be used for nezirut except the expression qorban. Any expressions can be used for qorban except the expression nezirut. If he said about a bunch of grapes, “I am locked away from you, I am separated from you, I am prevented from you, I am nazir from you,” he is a nazir. “It is for me qorban,” he only forbade it for himself as qorban. If he said about a loaf of bread, “I am locked away from it, I am separated from it, I am prevented from it, it is qorban for me,” he only forbade it for himself as qorban. “I am nazir from it,” he is a nazir. “Prevented” implies both nezirut and qorban. If somebody said about a bunch of grapes, “I am prevented from it,” if he wanted to eat it, one tells him, is it not holy for its money’s worth? If he redeemed it, one tells him, are you not a nazir?

Any expressions can be used for nezirut except the expression qorban. Any expressions can be used for qorban except the expression nezirut. If he said about a bunch of grapes, “I am locked away from you, I am separated from you, I am prevented from you, I am nazir from you,” he is a nazir. “It is for me qorban,” he only forbade it for himself as qorban. If he said about a loaf of bread, “I am locked away from it, I am separated from it, I am prevented from it, it is qorban for me,” he only forbade it for himself as qorban. “I am nazir from it,” he is a nazir. “Prevented” implies both nezirut and qorban. If somebody said about a bunch of grapes, “I am prevented from it,” if he wanted to eat it, one tells him, is it not holy for its money’s worth? If he redeemed it, one tells him, are you not a nazir?

MISHNAH: A person who made a vow of nazir, asked the Sages and they forbade, counts from the moment of his vow. If he asked the Sages and they permitted, if he had an animal designated, it leaves and grazes with the herd. The house of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree that this is dedication in error, it leaves and grazes in the herd? The House of Shammai anwered, do you not agree that if somebody erred and designated the ninth as the tenth, or the tenth as ninth, or the eleventh as tenth, it is sanctified? The House of Hillel anwered, not the staff sanctified it, for if he erred and put his staff on the eighth or the twelth, did he do anything? But the verse which sanctified the tenth sanctified the ninth and the eleventh.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah stated: All I forbade to you at other places I permitted to you here. Since everywhere 100 is a prohibition, more than 100 is permitted, but here even 100 is permitted.

May a Cohen defile himself for the honor of his teacher? The father-in-law of Rebbi Yannai the Younger died. He was both his father-in-law and his teacher. He asked Rebbi Yose who forbade it. Rebbi Ḥama (?) heard it and said: His students should defile themselves for him. The students [of Rebbi Yose] defiled themselves for him but ate meat and drank wine. Rebbi Mana told them: One of two things you cannot escape. If you are mourners, why did you eat meat and drink wine; if you are not mourners, why did you defile yourselves?

MISHNAH: If somebody divorces his wife because of bad reputation, he cannot take her back; because of a vow, he cannot take her back. Rebbi Jehudah says, for any vow known in public, he cannot take her back; not known in public, he can take her back. Rebbi Meїr says, for any vow which needs investigation by a Sage, he cannot take her back; if it does not need investigation by a Sage, he can take her back. Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah said, it happened in Sidon that one said to his wife, a qonam if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her, and the Sages permitted him to take her back, for the public good.

It was stated: “Why did they say that he who divorces his wife because of a vow cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife because of a vow, when she went, married another, and bore him children, after some time it turned out that the vow was void and he said, if I had known that the vow was void, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her child a bastard. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which was not public knowledge! “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other.” The law should be that he can take her back even if it was a vow which needs investigation by a Sage, for the Elder uproots the vow. Why did they forbid a vow which needs investigation by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

After Rebbi Eliezer’s death, four Elders assembled to object to Rebbi Eliezer’s words: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, Rebbi Tarphon, and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joshua told them, one does not contradict the lion after his death. Rebbi Tarphon objected: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married [the latter’s brother who] died childless; how can she contract the levirate marriage? Does it not turn out that he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid. Then nobody should be permitted to marry his brother’s daughter, lest he come to stipulate against what is written in the Torah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one understands the reason. There, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Ḥananiah objected in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Should one not state “sixteen women” following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Mana said, the reason was already explained: there, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married the latter’s brother who died childless, how can the latter permit what the first forbade? His words imply that death and divorce permit what the first [husband] prohibited. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he said only death and divorce; therefore, not marriage.

After Rebbi Eliezer’s death, four Elders assembled to object to Rebbi Eliezer’s words: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, Rebbi Tarphon, and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joshua told them, one does not contradict the lion after his death. Rebbi Tarphon objected: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married [the latter’s brother who] died childless; how can she contract the levirate marriage? Does it not turn out that he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid. Then nobody should be permitted to marry his brother’s daughter, lest he come to stipulate against what is written in the Torah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one understands the reason. There, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Ḥananiah objected in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Should one not state “sixteen women” following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Mana said, the reason was already explained: there, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married the latter’s brother who died childless, how can the latter permit what the first forbade? His words imply that death and divorce permit what the first [husband] prohibited. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he said only death and divorce; therefore, not marriage.

After Rebbi Eliezer’s death, four Elders assembled to object to Rebbi Eliezer’s words: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, Rebbi Tarphon, and Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joshua told them, one does not contradict the lion after his death. Rebbi Tarphon objected: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married [the latter’s brother who] died childless; how can she contract the levirate marriage? Does it not turn out that he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid. Then nobody should be permitted to marry his brother’s daughter, lest he come to stipulate against what is written in the Torah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one understands the reason. There, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Ḥananiah objected in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Should one not state “sixteen women” following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Mana said, the reason was already explained: there, the Torah forbade her to him. But here, he forbids to him! Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said to her, you are permitted to any man except Mr. X; she went and married the latter’s brother who died childless, how can the latter permit what the first forbade? His words imply that death and divorce permit what the first [husband] prohibited. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he said only death and divorce; therefore, not marriage.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim: ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim: ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.

What is the difference between his Hebrew male and female slaves and his Canaanite male and female slaves? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he is not empowered to change the employment of his male or female Hebrew slave, that one’s find belongs to himself. Since he is empowered to change the employment of his male or female Canaanite slave, their find belongs to their master. They objected: He is not empowered to change the employment of his wife, but her find belongs to him. As we have stated there: “He forces her to work with wool,” he cannot force her to work any other material. Rebbi Abba bar Mina and Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is another reason in the case of the wife. What is another reason in the case of the wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because of quarrel. Rebbi Yose said, lest she smuggle away her husband’s property and say: it is a find. They objected: before witnesses? They forbade one because of the other.

HALAKHAH: “Within three days before Gentile holidays,” etc. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba understood all from here: Bring your sacrifices in the morning, on the third day your tithes. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it were so, even in the diasporas. But it was stated, Nahum the Mede said, in the diasporas one day is forbidden. What about this? There, they checked and found that they supplied their needs in one day and forbade them one day. But here they checked and found that they cover their needs in three days and forbade them three days.

HALAKHAH: “Within three days before Gentile holidays,” etc. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba understood all from here: Bring your sacrifices in the morning, on the third day your tithes. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it were so, even in the diasporas. But it was stated, Nahum the Mede said, in the diasporas one day is forbidden. What about this? There, they checked and found that they supplied their needs in one day and forbade them one day. But here they checked and found that they cover their needs in three days and forbade them three days.

A ducenarius honored Rebbi Jehudah the Prince with a plate full of denarii. He took one of them and sent the remainder to him. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, he shall bring the value to the Dead Sea. But was he not an acquaintance and it was in the past? Rebbi Abbahu said, did not Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi asked me, may one go to a fair, and I forbade it to him, although it was stated: “one goes to fairs and buys there male and female slaves.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina. What about this? Rabban Gamliel was a minor personality and Rebbi Abbahu desired to confine him. But Rebbi Judan the Prince was an important person and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish wanted to limit the matter.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba sent to buy sandals for himself at the fair of Tyre. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, are you a buyer at fairs? He answered him, did you never buy a loaf of bread? He said to him, there is a difference, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not forbid the necessities of life. Rebbi Simeon ben Joḥanan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq, did you not check out the nature of the fair at Tyre? He told him, yes. He gave two pounds of peppers to an איסקרנדה. He went and found an inscription there, “I, King Diocletian, settled this fair at Tyre to the genius of my brother Heraklius, eight days.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman asked Rebbi Ḥanina: What is the nature of the fair at Gaza? He said to him, did you ever go to Tyre and see a Jew and a Gentile sharing a pot, and he does not worry that the Gentile pour something into the pot? This is difficult. He asked him; what did he answer him? But since Rebbi Ḥanina never said something that he had not heard, for that reason when he asked him this he responded with that. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun came, Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They forbade only the fair at Botnah, as it was stated thus: There are three fairs, the fair at Gaza, the fair at Acco, the fair at Botnah. The clearest of them is the fair at Botnah.

Bar Yudani had uncovered spice wine. He went and asked the rabbis who forbade it. But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet, are not under the rules of being uncovered. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: About one which consists of one to three parts ground [spices].

They asked before Rebbi Abbahu, what is the rule for uncovered cooked [wine]? He told them, Rebbi Joḥanan had a problem with carenum and you are asking me this? They asked Rebbi Isaac and he forbade it to them. Then Rebbi Abbahu remembered that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, it is forbidden.

Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan. Bread is of the practices of obfuscation. [Rebbi Yose said, so I asked before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: What means “of the practices of obfuscation?] Do I say, at a place where Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it? Or at a place where Jewish bread is not available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted and they obfuscated about it and forbade it? Rebbi Mana said, is there any obfuscation for prohibition? But is bread not like cooking of Gentiles? Are we saying: At a place where no Jewish cooking is available it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted? But it must be the following: At a place where Jewish bread is not available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it because of the necessities of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Following the words of him who was permitting, but only from the store; but one does not do this.

Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it. Daniel was careful, etc.

Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it. Daniel was careful, etc.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

Their roasted egg, Bar Qappara permitted, Ḥizqiah forbade. So far if it was roasted intentionally. If it was roasted unintentionally? Let us hear from the following: There was a fire in an under-growth of reeds and a swamp of date palms where there were locusts which were roasted. The case came before Rebbi Mana, who forbade them. Rebbi Abbahu said, because of admixture of impure locusts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, and this is of the stringencies of Rav. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and it dropped off under him. He went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place.

Their roasted egg, Bar Qappara permitted, Ḥizqiah forbade. So far if it was roasted intentionally. If it was roasted unintentionally? Let us hear from the following: There was a fire in an under-growth of reeds and a swamp of date palms where there were locusts which were roasted. The case came before Rebbi Mana, who forbade them. Rebbi Abbahu said, because of admixture of impure locusts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, and this is of the stringencies of Rav. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and it dropped off under him. He went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place.

MISHNAH: One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, in a house open to the public domain in a city where there are Gentiles and Jews it is permitted, in a city where all are Gentiles it is forbidden unless he install there a watchman. But the watchman does not have to sit there and watch; even if he leaves and reenters it is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, all Gentiles’ domains are the same. One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, if this one writes to him that I received the money, it is permitted. But if the Jew wants to remove it and he does not let him do it before he paid him his money, this was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages forbade.

HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was transporting,” etc. Rebbi Samuel said, it happened that a Non-Jew was transporting wine jugs with a Jew from one place to another. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who forbade. They said, the case was about open [containers]. Rebbi Zeriqan said, not only full ones but also short ones; for he suddenly could have touched with his hand and removed it.

Rebbi Aḥa went to Emmaus and ate something made in boiling water. Rebbi Jeremiah ate pickles. Rebbi Ḥizqiah ate locusts. Rebbi Abbahu forbade their wine on the testimony of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Immi who went up King’s Mountain and saw a Gentile who was suspected because of wine. They came and said it before him. He told them, but not as a pretext. But some say, one Sabbath eve no wine was found in all of Samaria. When Sabbath ended, it was found full from what the Arameans brought and the Samaritans accepted from them. But some say, when King Diocletian came here he decided and said, all peoples have to offer libations except the Jews. The Samaritans offered libations and their wine was forbidden. But some say, they have a kind of dove and they offer libations to it.

Hananyah began to declare certain things unclean, and they pronounced them clean ; he forbade certain things, and they declared them permissible. He thereupon proclaimed concerning them, "These men are worthless and men of no standing [and their fathers defiled the High Priesthood]." They said to him, "Thou hast already built up [our reputation here] and thou canst not pull down ; thou hast already raised a fence and thou canst not make a breach."

R. Hiyya b. Abba answered in the name of R. Yohanan, The former mishnah deals with planed boards and they forbade them as a decree lest he comes to use vessels

and was told that they do so in accordance with the view of Rabbi. This proves that the other scholars forbade it, their reason being that the Temple might soon be rebuilt, and we should have no priest fit for the service. Now, does not the same reason hold good also here (in the case of the priests growing their hair long)? No, in this case the priest may have his hair cut and then enter upon his duty. If so, an intoxicated priest might likewise sleep a while and then go to his duty, as Rami b. 'Abba said, a walk of a mile, or a little sleep causes the wine to evaporate? No, for did not R. Naḥman say in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this holds good only if one drank about a fourth (of a log), but if he drank more than that, walking makes him still more weary and sleep makes him still more drunk?

But is it not written, and they shall be? Say, Scrolls of the Scripture may be written in any language, and our Rabbis permitted them to be written in Greek. They permitted! This would imply that the First Tanna forbade it!