halakhah

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

HALAKHAH: It would only have been necessary: “These are the bystanders; they congregate in their towns and read about Creation.” He comes to start from the beginning of the subject.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments. But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Perita objected before Rebbi Ze`ira, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day. Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked before Rebbi Jonah; was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses?

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

HALAKHAH: It is written: The glory of the Eternal dwelt on Mount Sinai; the cloud covered it for six days; He called to Moses on the Seventh Day. Moses ascended. The Seventh after the Ten Commandments, the start of the Forty. Moses said to them, I shall be occupied on the Mountain for 40 days. When the fortieth day came and he did not come, immediately the people saw that Moses tarried in descending from the Mountain. When noontime came and he did not come, immediately the people congregated on Aaron and said to him, rise and make us gods which shall go before us, etc. The Eternal said to Moses, descend, for your people corrupted, etc. And Joshua heard the sound of the people in its dealings; he said to Moses, there is sound of war in the camp. Moses said, a man who in the future will rule over 600’000 does not know to distinguish between sound and sound? He said, there is no sound of shouts of strength nor sound of sounds of weakness, a sound of shouts I am hearing. Rebbi Yasa said, a sound of acclaim of foreign worship I am hearing. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Yasa: There is no generation in which there is not an ounce of the sin of the Calf. It was when he approached the camp that he saw the Calf and fifes. Rebbi Ḥilkiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: From here that a person should not argue from guesses. Moses made an argument de minore ad majus. Since for the pesaḥ sacrifice, which is an isolated obligation, it is said no uncircumcised may eat from it, the Torah in which all commandments are contained not so much more? Moses got angry and he threw the tablets from his hand and broke them below the Mountain. Rebbi Ismael stated, the Holy One, praise to Him, told him to break them, [as it is said,] I shall write on the tablets the words which were on the first tablets luckily you broke. He said to him, you did well that you broke. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The tablets were six hand-breadths long and three wide. Moses held two hand-breadth, the Holy One, praise to Him two hand-breadth, and two hand-breadths of space were between them. When Israel sinned in that way, the Holy One wanted to seize them from Moses’s hand, but Moses’s hand had the better of it and seized them from Him. That is what the verse praises him at the end and says, and all the strong hand, peace shall be on the hand which had the better on mine. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Abbai: the tablets wanted to fly off but Moses held them, [as is written,] I grabbed the two tablets. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nehemiah, the writing itself flew off. Rebbi Ezra in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Simon: The tablets were a load of forty seah but the writing was carrying them. When the writing flew off they were too heavy for Moses’s hands, they fell, and broke.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, that is a building of enjoyment. But if his wall was inclined, he tears it down and rebuilds it. Samuel said, the wall where he sleeps. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: A man may not preliminarily marry on a Friday. That means, to make an engagement feast. This implies that the preliminary marriage itself is permitted. Samuel says, even on the Ninth of Av a preliminary marriage is permitted, lest another forestall him. The argument of Samuel seems inverted. There, he says, God puts singles in a house; To rise on scales; they all are of vapor! And here, he says so? That means, that he should not forestall him in prayer. Even so, it would not be permanent.

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

HALAKHAH: “The scroll is read,” etc. Rebbi Ila, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To confirm these Purim days in their times. Why does the verse say, in their times? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jonah says, to give them other times. Rebbi Yose says, times which the Sages fixed for them. And those are these: the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, the Fifteenth. Or maybe only the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. Maybe it is only the Ninth and the Tenth? Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It is not written “days” but like the days, pair days with days, the Eleventh and Twelfth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth. Or the Twelfth and Thirteenth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth? Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war. It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. Then one should not read on this day. One reads before and after, on the day one should not read? Or only the Ninth and the Tenth? Like the days, days close to the days. But if days close to the days, {maybe} only Sixteenth and Seventeenth? You cannot, for Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. [Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass.]

HALAKHAH: In all cases where we are stating “if it falls” it refers to the Fourteenth. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “walled cities the next day.” Rebbi Yose said, there is no “if it falls on Monday”, [there is no] “if it falls on the Sabbath.” If it falls on Monday, the Great Fast Day is on Sunday; if it falls on the Sabbath, the Great Fast Day falls on Friday.

HALAKHAH: They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Come and see, if it falls so that in walled cities one should read on the Sabbath, one reads on Friday. If it falls so that in villages one should read on the Sabbath, it is being pushed to the market day! Rebbi La said, because of the honor of walled cities, that one should not say, we saw walled cities and villages read at the same day. Then it should not be pushed to the market day, that one should not say, we saw hamlets and villages read on the same day. Then if it falls on Monday, falls on [Thursday, falls on] the Sabbath? It was found stated, Hamlets [and villages] and walled cities may read together; and this Tanna does not show (respect) [even] for any creature. He holds that walled cities cannot precede villages; he holds that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. “Rebbi says, all shall be pushed to the market day.” For he holds that walled cities cannot precede villages; for he holds that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. How does one act? Rebbi Yose said, following the Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Ten who are free from work for the synagogue. Rav Jehudah said, like us who do not need time to study. It was stated, a place with less than ten inhabitants, its improvement is by its deficiency and is treated like a village.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it was intercalated and afterwards they read it; but if they read it and after that it was intercalated it does not apply. The Mishnah does not say so, but “if the Scroll was read during the first Adar and then the year was intercalated one has to read it during the second Adar.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: it is written, to validate this Purim letter; why does the verse say, the second? But from here that If the Scroll was read during the first Adar and then the year was intercalated one has to read it during the second Adar.

HALAKHAH: [It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, they also permitted actions preparatory to the preparation of food. What is between them? Rav Ḥisday said, to sharpen the tip of the spit is between them. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, to produce fire from stones is between them. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Barzilah: what is the matter? Is the matter to sharpen the tip of the spit, or to produce fire from stones? You only have the following: “One does not sharpen the knife but he cleanses it on another.” Rav Ḥisday said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s, for Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, it is everybody’s opinion, to remove the fat on it.]

HALAKHAH: Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, for “Rebbi Eleazar said, [also] the third time one checks him out because of the sacrifice.” But for the rabbis, the second time if forced he is pure, but the third time if forced is impure. Rebbi Yose said, if it is not the rabbis’, it also is not Rebbi Eleazar’s, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar said, I did not say to undo his count, only that he may not bring a sacrifice. I did not say that he is not a sufferer from flux to undo the count of episodes; not to upset his status did I say but that he may not bring a sacrifice. This implies that it is everybody’s opinion. If you would say it is Rebbi Eleazar’s it should state: the second time is subject to undoing but not a sacrifice, the third time to undoing and sacrifice. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, if she experienced two episodes of easy flux and one in difficulty she undoes and does not bring a sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: It is written all Earth was one tongue and unified words. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, they were speaking seventy languages. But the other said, they were speaking in the language of the Unique of the World, the holy language. Bar Qappara stated, may God embellish Japhet and dwell in the tents of Shem, that one should speak Japhet’s language in Shem’s tents. The sons of Japhet: Gomer and Magog, and Yawan, and Tubal, and Meshekh, and Tiras. Gomer, Germamia. Magog, Gothica. Madai, as it is understood. Yawan, Ephesus. Tuval, Bythinia. Meshekh, Moesia. Tiras, Rebbi Simon said Persia, but the rabbis said Thrace. The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphat, and Togarma. Asia, and Adiabene, and Germanicia. The sons of Yawan: Elisha, and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. Elis, Tarsos, Euboea, and Dardania. The Arwadite, Rhodos. The Ṣamarite, Ḥoms. The Ḥamatite, Ḥama. Up to Lasha`. Rebbi Eleazar said, to Kallirrhoe. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, from here about the Targum.

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

HALAKHAH: [“The only difference between a public altar and a private altar, etc.”] Rebbi Joḥanan spent three years that he did not visit the house of assembly because of pain. At the end Rebbi Eleazar saw in his dream: Tomorrow Sinai will come down and bring a new insight. He came and said before them, from where is this truth verified that divine service is by firstborns? From this verse, for Mine is every firstborn; on the day when I smote every firstborn in the Land of Egypt, etc. And it is written, and on all gods of Egypt I shall pass judgment, etc. Before that what were they doing? Rebecca took the desirable garments of her older son Esaw, which were with her in the house. What are “the desirable”? That he was acting as High Priest. Rebbi Levi said, the Eternal broke the staff of the evildoers, these are the firstborn who were the first to sacrifice to the Calf.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius understood it from the following: Then Joshua would build an altar for the Eternal, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal. Not only Mount Ebal, from where Shilo? Samuel took a milk lamb and brought it up totally as elevation offering for the Eternal. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, three sins were permitted for Samuel’s sheep: It and its hide, and deficient in time, and he was a Levite. Rebbi Yose said, if about this it implies nothing, since Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, seven sins were permitted for Gideon’s bull: Disqualified stones, and Asherah wood, and separated, and worshipped, and night, and outsider, and altar prohibition. He who wants may understand it well from that by Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: When he returned to Rama, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and there he built an altar for the Eternal. It is written, the cook lifted the thigh and what was on it and put before Saul, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the thigh and meat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the thigh and the fat tail. Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast, as Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast belong to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The hide of the elevation sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The contribution of a thanksgiving sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is the night qualified at a private altar? Rebbi Eleazar answered, is it not written, Saul said, disperse under the people and tell them, every man shall bring to me his ox, etc. And it is written, they told Saul saying, behold the people are sinning against the Eternal by eating on the blood, etc. How is this? The night for profane {slaughter}, and the day for sacrificial. When Rebbi Joḥanan heard this, he said, well did Rebbi Eleazar teach us.

HALAKHAH: “He who reads the Scroll out of order did not fulfill his obligation.” For it is written, as in their writing. If he read it by heart he did not fulfill his obligation for it is written, as in their writing. If he read it in Aramaic he did not fulfill his obligation for it is written, as in their writing. In any language he did not fulfill his obligation for it is written, in their writing and in their language.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Piecewise, he fulfilled his obligation. Transposed, he did not fulfill his obligation. Piecewise means in pieces. Transposed, one minus one.

HALAKHAH: One understands the dweller in a walled city whose time is later. Is the time of a village dweller who went to a walled city not earlier? Rebbi Yudan said, there is here no village dweller who went to a walled city. And it was stated in the House of Rebbi so: the dweller in a walled city who went to a village. Rebbi Yose said, also here if he will stay with them. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left before dawn, but if he left after dawn he already is not liable. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, then a proselyte who circumcised after dawn already is not liable? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the village dweller who changed his abode in the night of the Fifteenth [is obligated here; and a dweller in a walled city who changed his abode in the night of the Fourteenth] is not liable at either place?

HALAKHAH: “From where does a person start to read and fulfills his duty? Rebbi Meïr says, all of it. Rebbi Jehudah says, from a Jewish man. Rebbi Yose says, from after these matters.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He who says all of it, about all words of this letter. He who says from a Jewish man, what they understood about it. He who says from after these matters, and what happened to them. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He who says all of it, all the facts of his strength and mightiness. He who says from a Jewish man, the Chapter of the greatness of Mordocai. He who says from after these matters, how the King aggrandized him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: strength, all strength, with all strength. Strength, is Haman’s strength. All strength, is Mordocai’s strength. With all strength, is Ahasuerus’s strength. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥay says, from in that night. From the place where there was Haman’s downfall came Mordocai’s rise.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “The entire day is qualified to read the Scroll,” as it is written, on the day the enemies of the Jews thought they would rule over them. To read the Hallel, as it is written, this is the day the Eternal made, let us enjoy and be happy on it. To blow the shofar, as it is written, a day to shofar blowing it shall be for you. To take the lulav, as it is written, you shall take for yourselves on the first day. For the musaf prayer, and for musaf sacrifices, as it is written, on the day on which He commanded the Children of Israel, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The entire night is qualified for the counting of the omer.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s, since Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, from the start of cutting you shall start to count. Then he should leave the Sabbath domain at nightfall and start to cut. It is impossible to be exact; therefore the entire night is qualified.

HALAKHAH: “The people of a town who sold the town plaza,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose’s, for Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose said, the town plaza has holiness since one brings a Torah scroll and reads from it in public. But following the Rabbis one treats it like a distance of four cubits.

HALAKHAH: Three from a synagogue act for the synagogue, seven from a town act for the town. Where do we hold? If they accepted it, even one; if they did not accept, even many. But we hold in the normal case.

HALAKHAH: This you are saying for a private synagogue. But for a public synagogue it is forbidden even if it is built up. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan was cursing women who hung their clothing in the air of the study hall.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The Holy One, praiuse to Him, saw that the evil Haman in the future would weigh his money against Israel. He said, it is better that my children’s money should precede this evil one’s money. Therefore one precedes and reads the paragraph about Šeqalim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not interrupt between Purim and cow. Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: One does not interrupt between cow and this month. Rebbi Levi said, a sign for these paragraphs, “between these cups, he may drink if he wants to drink; between the third and the fourth he may not drink.” Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina, it would have been logical that this month should precede cow since the Tabernacle was erected on the First of Nisan and the cow was burned on the Second. Why does cow precede? Because it is the purification of all of Israel.

HALAKHAH: “On Pentecost, seven weeks.” There are Tannaim who state, in the third month “And on New Year’s Day, and in the Seventh month.” There are Tannaim who state, and the Eternal counted Sarah. “On the Day of Atonement, after the death. On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa, to teach you that the world only exists by the sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “One does not interrupt curses.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, do not be repelled by his reproach, do not split it into many thorns. Rebbi Levi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, said that it is not logical that My children be cursed and I praised. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of that reason but because one who stands up to read in the Torah needs to start with something good and conclude with something good. Levi bar Paṭi asked Rav Ḥuna: these curses which we read as one, should one recite a benediction before and after? He said to him, nothing needs a benediction before and after except the curses in Leviticus and the curses in Deuteronomy. Rebbi Jonathan the scribe of Gufta came down here; he saw Bar Abuna reading the Song of the Well and recite a benediction before and after. He said to him, does one do this? He answered him, you still are about this? All songs need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Simon was asked. Rebbi Simon told them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, only the Song on the Sea, and the Ten Commandments, and the curses [in Leviticus and the curses] in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Abbahu said, I did not hear. It seems reasonable for the Ten Commandments. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: the eight verses in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Without this do not the one who starts and the one who finishes recite the benediction before and after? But it is needed for a New Moon which falls on a Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: “One who reads the scroll either stands or sits,” etc. How? In the past? Therefore not a priori? But was it not stated, “it happened that Rebbi Meïr read it in the synagogue of Tiveon while sitting; he gave it to another who recited the benediction.” So is the Mishnah: one is permitted to read it standing; one is permitted to read it sitting. How may he give it to another who recited the benediction? One reads and another recites the benediction? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Jeremiah: from here that the hearer is like the reader. It is written, which the King of Judea read. But did not Shafan read it? But from here that the hearer is like the reader.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments [But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Protos objected before Rebbi Jonah, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day.] Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked, was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses. Should there not be 23? Three for ten, three for ten, and one three.

HALAKHAH: “And on the Day of Atonement six.” There are Tannaim who state, seven. He who says six, because of the prayer. He who says seven, following what was stated, on a Sabbath one comes early and leaves early; on a holiday one comes late and leaves early, on the Day of Atonement one comes early and leaves late.

HALAKHAH: Since we had stated, “one does not spread out the Shema` with less than ten attendants”, for which purpose did we state, “one does not stand before the Ark with less than ten attendants”? It is necessary for what was stated, “one does not spread out the Shema` with less than ten attendants; if they started with ten and some left, he finishes. One does not stand before the Ark with less than ten attendants; if they started with ten and some left, he finishes. One does not lift his hands with less than ten attendants; if they started with ten and some left, he finishes. One does not read in the Torah with less than ten attendants; if they started with ten and some left, he finishes. One does not close with Prophets with less than ten attendants; if they started with ten and some left, he finishes. About all these He says, those who abandon the Eternal will disappear.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one became paralyzed while reading in the Torah, the one who steps in for him should start from the place the first one started. For if you would say from the place he stopped, the first verses would have been blessed before them but not after them, the last ones after them but not before them, but it is written The Torah of the Eternal is perfect, that it should be totally perfect.

HALAKHAH: Is not necessarily the one who spreads out the Shema` the one who stands before the Ark and who lifts his hands? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, in order to hasten him.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated, “A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled.” And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Jehudah says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Meïr says, excluding the blind person. And here we have stated, “a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`.” Therefore if he saw he spreads. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, is the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not spread the Shema`.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person.

HALAKHAH: It was stated, in his face. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? As the following: The finger of Rebbi Naftali was bent. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who said to him, since you are known in your town it is permitted. Rav Ḥuna disqualified one with sparse facial hair. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? Rebbi Mana said, it was a crowded holiday; so they should not say, we saw a minor lifting his hands. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to look at the Cohanim at the moment when they are blessing Israel. Rebbi Ḥaggai, when they said, one does not look, was it not because of inattention? By Moses, I shall look and my attention will not be diverted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Bevai stated: Square [black] tefillin are practice from Moses on Sinai.

HALAKHAH: “He who says, may the good ones bless You.” Two powers.

HALAKHAH: What Sages tell, they did not hold back anything from their ancestors. What reward did they take for this? To them alone the Land was given, no stranger passed in their midst.

HALAKHAH: “One does not close with the Chariot, but Rebbi Jehudah permits. And Rebbi Eliezer says, one does not close with tell Jerusalem its abominations. It happened that somebody closed with tell Jerusalem its abominations. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, may this man go and be informed of the abominations of his mother. They checked him out and he was found to be a bastard.”

HALAKHAH: “All are obligated to appear,” etc. The Mishnah is about the sacrifice of appearance, but the child is obligated in the personal appearance. From the following, assemble the people, men, women, and toddlers. And are not children older than toddlers?

HALAKHAH: The sacrifice of appearance is elevation offerings, but the festival sacrifice is well-being offerings. The House of Shammai are saying, one increases elevation offerings and diminishes well-being offerings. The House of Hillel are saying, one diminishes elevation offerings and increases well-being offerings. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The House of Shammai infer from the sacrifices [of Pentecost; the House of Hillel infer from the sacrifices] of the princes. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, is it not better to be instructed from a private offering about private offerings and not to be instructed from public offerings about a private offering? The House of Shammai said to them, it is better to be instructed by something applicable to the future; do not refer to the sacrifice of the princes which is not applicable to the future.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure, and it is said there, for you cannot carry it. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday.

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

HALAKHAH: If he is poor but generous, I am reading for him, each man according to his means, rich but stingy, I am reading for him, corresponding to the blessing by the Eternal, your God, which He gave you. If he is poor and stingy, on this one it was said, not less than two silver coins.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first, also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania, Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: When you see towns in the Land of Israel uprooted from their place, know that they did not contribute to the wages of Bible and Mishnah teachers. What is the reason? Why is the land ruined, torn down like an uninhabited wilderness? The Eternal said, because they abandoned My Torah.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, they have support. I swore and shall keep it. Sometimes I do not keep it. Rebbi Joshua says, they have support. Which I swore in My anger. I swore in My anger, I am changing My opinion.

HALAKHAH: “One does not explain sexual aberrations to three {persons},” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael states warnings to the actors. Since Rebbi Immi was sitting and stating a warning for active homosexual and a warning for the passive homosexual, this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael.

HALAKHAH: Originally the only disagreement in Israel was about leaning on. Then rose Hillel and Shammai and made it four. After the students of the House of Shammai and students of the House of Hillel increased who did not sufficiently serve their teachers, disagreements increased in Israel and they were split into two sects; these declare impure and those declare pure, and the prior state will not be reconstituted until the arrival of David’s son.

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

HALAKHAH: “If Pentecost falls on a Friday, the House of Shammai are saying that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath, but the House of Hillel are saying that it has no slaughter-day.” But its day is its slaughter-day. Here the House of Shammai are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath, and the High Priest (wears) [does not wear] his garments (?)[.] It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since in a time where there are well-being and elevation offerings following the House of Hillel the High Priest does not wear his garments, in a time when there are no well-being and elevation offerings following the House of Shammai, not so much more?

HALAKHAH: Is hand-washing required for profane food? But it must follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, hand-washing is required for profane food. It is everybody’s opinion, so he should separate from heave. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follow Rebbi Aqiba, as we have stated there, “if somebody puts his hands into a leprous house, his hands are impure in the first degree, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages are saying, his hands are impure in the second degree”? There, it follows the rabbis; what is their reason here? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave. But did they not decide about them because of fluids; then they should be impure in the first degree? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since the Tevul Yom, which is a word from the Torah, only disqualifies, impure hands, which are from their words, not so much more? Another explanation: Did they not decide about hands only that he should separate from heave? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave.

HALAKHAH: But needs profane food intention? He is informing you of more: even if he immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food he is prohibited tithe. Did not Rebbi Eleazar say, the count for profane food is the count for tithe? Here it is for eating, there for touching. He who immerses himself without specification is pure for all of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had relationship with all of them. As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They stated it for touchings. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, from where did this garment become impure by support? He told him, explain it that the vulgar’s wife sat on it naked. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: As you are saying there, there is no “support” for profane food but there is “support” for profane food by touching, similarly there is no load for profane food but there is load for profane food by touching. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if she sat on a chair and touched it? As you look at it, if load, there is load; it touching there is touching. As you are saying about load, on condition that most of it be carried, similarly if most of it be touched?

HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there, “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “It happened that a woman was weaving cloth in purity and came to Rebbi Ismael to ask him about it. She told him, I am sure that it did not become impure, only I did not concentrate to watch it. While he was interrogating her, she said to him, a menstruating woman came and helped me stretching the rope. At that moment Rebbi Ismael said, great are the words of the Sages who said, ‘implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave.’ Another happening: a woman was weaving a shawl in purity and came to Rebbi Ismael to ask him about it. She told him, I am sure that it did not become impure, only I did not concentrate to watch it. While he was interrogating him, she said to him, a thread broke and I tied it with my mouth. At that moment Rebbi Ismael said, great are the words of the Sages who said, ‘implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave.’ ”

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos said, do dry foods exist for sancta? He impales the flat piece on the spit and eats with it an olive-sized bit of meat of heave but not of sancta.”

HALAKHAH: “One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy.” Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Because a strip of Samaritans interrupts. But did we not state, “the second best is Regev in Transjordan”? Without this would not a strip of Samaritans interrupt? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it if he brings whole olives and pounds them there. And in Judea one is trustworthy about the wine but not about the flasks. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Southerner who said, I brought this from Galilee is trustworthy; a Galilean who said, I brought this from Judea is not trustworthy.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is about small clay vessels. The Mishnah implies this: “the potter, the pots, and the buyers.” And are pots not small clay vessels?

HALAKHAH: “If tax collectors entered a house, the house is impure. If they are accompanied by a Gentile they are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch.” One may explain this by two explanations. They are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch if witnesses know of it. And in Jerusalem they are trustworthy about sancta even if witnesses know of it. One may explain by another explanation: They are trustworthy to say, we entered but we did not touch. This is necessary {to be stated} even if witnesses know of it. And in Jerusalem they are trustworthy about sancta even if witnesses know of it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted its end because of its beginning. Since if you would tell him that he may not finish he would not open. Let him not open! Then he diminishes the enjoyment of the holiday.

HALAKHAH: Do vessels need immersion? Rebbi Abba said, I am saying that possibly one of the vessels there was not sprinkled upon. Then should we not suspect all of them? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that there was one of the Cohanim who left to speak with a woman about her nest and a drop of spittle fell on his clothing from her mouth and made him impure. Then should we not suspect all of them? Explain it if it became impure by fluids of uncertain status. There we have stated: “Fluids of uncertain status, to become impure they are impure, to make impure they are pure.” There about heave, here about sancta. One is restrictive for sancta.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

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.>”

HALAKHAH: Eshut is the mole. Even though it is no proof, it is an indication: Like a still-born mole, Never seeing the sun!

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: What is readying a grave? Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai said, one whitewashes it with lime. Rav Ḥisda said, if it was long he shortens it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he enlarges it at one side and widens it at another side. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “he enlarges and widens it whether on one side or at two sides.”

HALAKHAH: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of refraining from being fruitful and increase. They asked before Rebbi Yose: May a slave marry a woman on a holiday? He told them, let us hear from the following: “One who is half a slave and half a free man.” And Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of refraining from being fruitful and increase. This implies that a slave is commanded to be fruitful and multiply and anybody commanded to be fruitful and multiply is forbidden to marry on a holiday

HALAKHAH: In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, “normally”, he fills his needle. “Staples”, stitch by stitch. Rebbi Joḥanan said, “normally”, stitch by stitch. “Staples”, he jumps. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: The cobblers are stapling on the holiday. If you would say stitch by stitch, that is what they are doing professionally. But we must hold that they sew irregularly. Who is an individual and who is a professional? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one who matches seams is a professional, but any who does not match seams is an individual. Rebbi Simon said, the Mishnah refers to those who sew pockets.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥalaphta bar Shaul stated, only that it not be newly formed on the holiday. It was stated: A new oven or stove one does neither soak with oil nor patch with a strip nor wash down with cold water to close its pores. But in order to actually cook a pot on it this is permitted. And it was stated thus: New oven or stove are like all implements which are moved in a courtyard. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael instructed in an emergency to bring a new stove from the house of the potter to newly cook on it on the full holiday.

HALAKHAH: For the roof three, for the balustrade ten {hand-widths}.

HALAKHAH: “If one turned his olives over,” etc. We stated, “if one turned his olives over.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he whose olives were turned over repeatedly. Our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Ḥiyya, and the statement of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ze`ira said, it only says “if his wine was in the cistern.” Therefore to start is forbidden. Where do we hold? If it was time to harvest the grapes and he did not harvest, he caused the damage to himself. If it was not time for the grape harvest, what could he have done? But we must hold that the time for the grape harvest arrived and he thought that he could finish but he could not. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai harvested his vineyard on the holiday. Everybody saw him and harvested after him. In another year he left it and it dried up. They are learning the wrong behavior but are not learning the correct behavior.

HALAKHAH: And not following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, he sits and watches. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: merchandise in danger of spoilage may be moved on the holiday. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: it is permitted to buy from a caravan on the intermediate days of a holiday, if he knows that the caravan comes and depresses the prices. Rebbi Mana said, if he knows that not buying would depress his earnings he may buy; otherwise he may not buy. [Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, earnings and capital are capital. If he knows that not buying would depress his capital he may buy; if not he may not buy.] Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed in the matter of fine tissues that one may buy them on the holiday to be used on he holiday. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar commanded to Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai who was coming from a ship: Sell if you know that if you are selling the ship will wait for you when you come to drink with us; otherwise do not sell. Rebbi Jonah from Bostra had books. He asked Rebbi Huna, may I sell them on the holiday? He told him, enjoy the holiday, drink spiced wine.

HALAKHAH: One understands all of them. Stones? As the following: “If his wall was sloping one tears it down and rebuilds.” Could he not tear down and not build? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the beginning. For if you tell him not to build he will not tear down and create a danger.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: one thickens; Rebbi Jehudah said, small amounts may be lost so large amounts not be lost; Rebbi Yose says, nothing at all shall be lost. Cahana said, there are things in holidays more difficult than “tent coverings” and “skin diseases”. There, Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, one spreads a mat over rows <of any bricks> on the Sabbath. And here he says so? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: To pluck from the ground is between them. The rabbis are saying, he plucks and thickens. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may not pluck but may thicken.

HALAKHAH: “And the following shave on the holiday: He who comes from overseas, or from being kidnapped, or leaves jail.” Therefore all other people are forbidden? Rebbi Simon said, they decreed about them so they should not enter the holiday badly groomed. There, we have stated: “The people of the watch and those of the bystanders are forbidden to shave and to wash their garments, but on Thursday they are permitted because of the honor of the Sabbath.” Therefore on all other days they are forbidden? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Abun, <rebbi yasa> in the name of Ḥizqiah: They decreed about them so they should not enter their week badly groomed.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: It is permitted to wash women’s bath cloths on the holiday. Women’s bath cloths have the same status as men’s bath cloths. What are women’s bath cloths? The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, οθόνιον. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person who only has one garment may wash it on the holiday. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this means two, that he may give one to be washed and wear one. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the status of small children’s garments? He said to them, like one who only has one garment. They asked before him: We have stated, “only the relatives of the deceased may tear their clothes, take off their shoes, and accept the consolation meal.” If his strip was small and his relatives want to come to him, may half of them sit inside and half outside? He said to them, half of them should come today and half tomorrow. Rebbi Mana said, there we had thought that he was going to be lenient, but he was restrictive.

HALAKHAH: Is he not sorry? Rebbi Ze`ira said, since he decided to divorce he is not sorry.

HALAKHAH: “One does not write documents for sharecroppers or contractorship on the holiday. The appraiser appraises normally on condition that he neither measure nor weigh nor count.” “But one accepts contractorship on the holiday on condition that it be executed after the holiday; one does not accept contractorship on the holiday on condition that it be executed on the holiday. The appraiser appraises normally on condition that he neither measure not weigh nor count.”

HALAKHAH: “The decree of seven”, sandal and soap. “The decree of thirty,” mending, and pressing, and shaving. What is pressing? New pressed woolen garments, and pressed white linen garments. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on a Sabbath, he shaves on Friday. How is this possible? Explain it if he had been dragged away by a wild animal and they gave up hope to look after him. It was stated thus: When do you start to count for somebody who was dragged away by a wild animal? When they gave up hope to look after him. If they found separate limbs of him one counts when his head and most of his body had been found. Rebbi Jehudah says, spine and skull form the majority. Rebbi Abun said, explain it that the cover plate was laid Friday evening at the start of darkness. How is this possible? Rebbi Aḥa said, explain it if it was closed by a Gentile. Some wanted to say that he received a current notice on the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: They said in the House of Rebbi Yannai: Pentecost is counted as seven like holidays.They asked before Rebbi Yose: Three preceding Pentecost, and Pentecost seven, is that ten? Or three preceding Pentecost are seven, and Pentecost seven, they are fourteen? Rebbi Yose the important one said, one day preceding Pentecost is counted five, two days after Pentecost are counted as four. Three, the decree of Seven is cancelled.

HALAKHAH: “Only the relatives of the deceased tear their clothes, or take them off, or are brought the first meal. Rebbi Jeremiah said, only relatives who have to mourn. As this which was stated: If a Sage dies [all] are his relatives, even relatives who do not have to mourn. As the following: Rebbi Abun died on a holiday and Rebbi Mana did not participate in mourning. The Sepphoreans said, he hates him even in death. After the holiday he eulogized him. He preached and said in front of them, as was stated: If a Sage dies all are his relatives, referring to those who were present. We were not present.

HALAKHAH: For all deceased he pushes the bier and minimizes the activities; for his father and his mother he maximizes the activities and does not push the bier. If it was a time of emergence or the rainy season, even for his father and his mother he maximizes the activities and does not push the bier, since everybody who maximizes the activities for his father and his mother is praiseworthy.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illai expired on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Dosa expired on the New Month of Nisan. They made them outside. They thought, with the agreement of the rabbis. They investigated and found, not with the agreement of the rabbis. Rebbi Crispus expired on the holiday. They made him outside. They thought, with the agreement of Rebbi Immi. They investigated and found, not with the agreement of Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: Even momentarily, from this: And Miriam died there and was buried there. But we see that the rabbis repeat the words. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the colleagues are careful and they will not deliver eulogies.

HALAKHAH: “Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives”, etc. It is written “unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted and then forbidden, when it became permitted again should one think it returned to its prior permission? The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted and then forbidden, when she became permitted again should one think she returned to her prior permission? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

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

HALAKHAH: “How do they free their co-wives? If a man’s daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women,”, etc. That is the baraita: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

HALAKHAH: “How are their co-wives permitted if they die,” etc. That is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, when she died her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

HALAKHAH: “Six incest prohibitions are more stringent than these since they [concern women who] must be married to others”, etc. In what are they more stringent? Here there is extirpation, there is extirpation. Here there is bastardy, there there is bastardy. What is more stringent? That they cannot be married to the brothers without transgression. And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: For all women who may be married to the brothers without transgression, their co-wives are free from ḥalîṣah and levirate.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers,” etc. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name ofNehorai: The reason of the House of Shammai, “the outside wife of the deceased shall not belong to a strange man,” the “outer one” should not be another man’s. It turns out that the House of Shammai hold like those Samaritans who perform levirate with the betrothed but remove the married, for they explain “outside” as “the outer one.” How do the House of Shammai confirm “when he has no child”? Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, “when he has no child” from the married one, “the outer one shall not belong outside to a strange man.” He said to him, will not the Samaritans love you that you confirm their interpretations! Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: I told the learned Samaritans, what did cause you to err? That you did not explain following Rebbi Neḥemiah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: Anything which needs a ל as a prefix but did not get it, we give it a ה at the end, e. g., to the outside חוּצָה, to Se‘ir שְׂעִירָה, to Succoth סוּכּוֹתָה. They objected to Rebbi Neḥemiah, is it not written: “The wicked shall return to the pit לִשְׁאוֹלָה.” Rabba bar Zabda said, to the lowest living space in Sheol.

HALAKHAH: Why “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Because if it were not so, what would we say? If he died childless, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, for maybe his father would have another son and his widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Even if [the deceased’s] mother had died, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, [because] maybe the father would go and marry a new wife who could have a son and the widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Then the verse would have to read: “He has neither father nor son”! One would compare this to the case that he left his widow pregnant; does she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Here also, should she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Therefore it was necessary to say “together”; this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world.

HALAKHAH: “If there were two brothers, one of them died”, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, and you say so? May one permit levirate with the “bespoken” woman? One should suspect that “bespeaking” does not acquire; then he would be guilty because of “wife of his brother who did not live in his world.” Can the “bespoken” one perform ḥalîṣah? Should one not suspect that “bespeaking” does acquire; then the second {widow] is a candidate for [the third brother]. It must be that Rebbi Simeon refers to the first case.