halakhah

HALAKHAH: “If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “If you plant any food tree.” What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt. Then the one for food even if he intended it as a fence should be obligated! The verse says, “a food tree.”

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 19:21) “When you plant,” this excludes what Gentiles planted before Israel came to the Land. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Abba, this implies that an exempt root exempts.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If it could survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated.

HALAKHAH: “A sapling of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim.” But no saplings are kilaim in a vineyard! So is the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi (the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi) Abun said, if he brought a flower pot and temporarily put it under a vine.

HALAKHAH: “Leaves and shoots.” Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, as was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: (Num. 6:4) “Anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to skin he shall not eat,” that includes leaves and shoots.

HALAKHAH: “Heave and heave of the tithe”, etc. For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Simeon. Even though Rebbi Simeon says that two different names do not combine, he agrees that all items called “heave” do combine.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave) [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hilfai, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The House of Shammai made it as if swollen.

HALAKHAH: Ḥanania stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The first Mishnah also is in disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, we hold to say that they disagree when each one is full strength and the profane sourdough fell in first. But if the heave sourdough fell in first, the dough already became sour.

HALAKHAH: We understand two names for one kind. But two kinds of one name? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They taught this about sweeteners.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? The first pushes the last out.

HALAKHAH: “If sourdough of heave and Sabbatical produce fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combine and make sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people and Cohanim. If either one of them is enough to make it sour and they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people and Cohanim. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Of piggul, leftovers, or holy sacrifices.”

HALAKHAH: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.” Some Tannaїm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaїm state: What envelopes the fruit. He who says what envelopes the fruit, understands shells and pits. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits. From where pits? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.” Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it.

HALAKHAH: Who stated “sîṭ”? Rebbi Meïr! But for the Sages, sîṭ or less than a sîṭ follow the same rules.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

HALAKHAH: How much is a bundle? 25 plants. Rebbi Jonah said, four to a bed.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah asked: Therefore, not breakable almonds?

HALAKHAH: If they fell down and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added, unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: What is a doubtful case of ‘orlah? An ‘orlah vineyard and grapes are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, in that doubtful case also it is forbidden in Syria. What is a doubtful case in Syria? A vineyard planted with vegetables, a vegetable field next to it, and vegetables are sold on the outside; in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted. “Rebbi Jehudah said, that also is forbidden in Syria. Which doubtful case is permitted in Syria? If a vineyard is planted with vegetables, a field of vegetables is nearby, and vegetables are sold on the outside, in the Land of Israel it is forbidden, in Syria permitted.”

HALAKHAH: “Some people bring First Fruits and make the declaration,” etc. He who plants in his own but provines into a private or a public plot cannot bring even from the old tree; he who provines from a private or a public plot into his own cannot bring even from the new tree. That means that just as the new lives off the old, so the old lives off the new.

HALAKHAH: So far if he robbed the real estate. If he robbed a vine and planted it, does he not owe money? But the rabbis have a problem: do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not bring; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may bring. Everybody agrees that from a worshipped tree which was damaged one cannot bring logs for the altar fire. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, may he take a lulav from it? Do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not take; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may take. It is obvious that he may take a lulav from it and commandments are not like Temple sacrifices. May he bring First Fruits? According to Rebbi Jehudah who compares them to country sacred food he may bring; according to the rabbis who compare them to Temple sacrifices he may not bring.

HALAKHAH: “One does not bring First Fruits”, etc. If it were written (Deut. 26:2): “You shall take the First Fruits of your land”, I would have said that all kinds should be obligated for First Fruits. The verse says,“from the First Fruits”, not all firsts. If “from the first” and not all first, then you have only wheat and barley. The verse says “fruits of your land”; this is inclusive. Does it include everything? Here “your land” has been said; at another place “the Land of wheat and barley” has been said. Since “land” mentioned there deals with the Seven Kinds, so also “land” mentioned in this verse must deal with the Seven Kinds.

HALAKHAH: : “The following bring but do not make the declaration”. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks of a proselyte of the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration, as it is written (Num. 10:29): “Go with us and we shall treat you well.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but: Why did they say “the guardians, the slave, the agent, the woman, the sexless and the hermaphrodite can bring but do not make the declaration,” is not the proselyte mentioned here? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, explain it by the proselyte mentioned here, by the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says,” etc. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male desecrated one.” They all interpret the same verse (Ez. 44:22): “Only virgins from the seed of the House of Israel.” Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel. Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Num. 31:18): ‘All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male you shall let live for yourselves,’ and Phineas was with them.” But the rabbis [say], you shall let live as slaves and slave girls for yourselves.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: If one bought a single tree he did not acquire the ground, two he did not acquire the ground. From one he does not bring at all, from two he brings and does not make the declaration? Rebbi Eleazar said to him, you are asking a question to which the rabbis in assembly have no answer.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the rabbis? (Deut. 26:3) “I am declaring today”. He declares once but not twice. Does not Rebbi Jehudah hold so? He does, referring to one person. But two persons can declare and declare again.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Sixteen mil in a circle around Sepphoris is the Land flowing with milk and honey. Rebbi Jonah said, if one measures as the crow flies, the outskirts of Beth Shean belong to it. If one measures as the crow flies, the valley of Genezareth belongs to it. One objected to Rebbi Jonah: (Ex. 3:17) “I said, I shall lift you from the deprivation of Egypt” (Ex. 3:8) “into a good and wide land, [to] a land flowing with milk and honey”! He said to them, which contains [stretches of] milk and honey.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Hereditary tenant farmers do not bring; Rebbi Jehudah says, they themselves bring and make the declaration.

HALAKHAH: “For heave and First Fruits,” etc. It is written (Num.18.8): “Behold, I gave to you the watch over My heaves.” Two heaves, heave and First Fruits. About heave it is written (Lev. 22:9): “They should not carry sin because of it and die if they desecrate it.” First fruits as it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There you shall bring your elevation offerings,” these are First Fruits, as it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.” Maybe we should say that the verse refers to sacrifices? Extirpation is already written in regard to sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “They need to be brought to the Place.” Because it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There, you shall bring your elevation offerings, your family sacrificies, your tithes, and your hand’s heave.” “Your hand’s heave” are First Fruits since it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.”

HALAKHAH: It is true that heave makes the threshing floor forbidden? Explain it if he gave it early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First Tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave.

HALAKHAH: If a tree why a vegetable, if a vegetable, why a tree? There, they say that if it grows from the sixth [year] into the Sabbatical [year] it belongs to the owners as if from a tree and is free from tithes as if a vegetable. Rav Hamnuna told them, look at the following [year]! If it grows from the Sabbatical to the eighth year, it should be ownerless as if from a tree and subject to tithes as if a vegetable. Is anything ownerless subject to tithes?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If he was warned, he is whipped. But did we not state: “But one is not guilty because of the blood of crawling beings”? Rebbi Abba said, one is not subject to extirpation for it. But was it not stated: “The blood of two-legged beings which have no minor impurity, the blood of crawling things which have no major impurity”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that is, if they warned him because of blood. But if they warned him because of abomination, he is whipped.

HALAKHAH: What is a koy? Rebbi Eleazar said, [the offspring of] a he-goat which mated with a hind or of a stag which mated with a she-goat. But the rabbis say it is a separate kind and the Sages could not determine its nature.

HALAKHAH: “How does one designate First Fruits? Etc.” In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, if he did not call them when they were picked they are not sanctified, they do not create dema‘, one is not required to add a fifth, and one is not whipped for them outside the wall. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Deut. 26:10) “Now, behold, I brought the first of the fruits of the earth.” At the moment of presentation it must be a fruit, but also at the moment of dedication? Even unripe grapes, even unripe figs! In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, since at the moment of presentation it must be a fruit, so also at the moment of dedication it must be a fruit.

HALAKHAH: For example, Jehoyarib and its acquaintances.

HALAKHAH: How far? That he could give heave from the best. If he wants to bring a fig cake, we shall say that if it was from Qe‘ila he may bring it, from Bostra he cannot bring it.

HALAKHAH: Rav Huna said: So is the Mishnah (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose said: Everybody agrees that one adorns First Fruits with produce of the Land since nobody errs to think that one may bring First Fruits from outside the Land. They differ about this, about Ammon and Moab. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits [with anything] except from the Seven Kinds, one may adorn First Fruits with produce from Ammon and Moab. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits only with the Seven Kinds, one may not adorn First Fruits with produce from Ammon and Moab. Rebbi Mana said: Everybody agrees that one may not adorn First Fruits with produce of Ammon and Moab since people err to think that one may bring First Fruits from Ammon and Moab. About what do they differ? About outside the Land. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits [with anything] except from the Seven Kinds, one may adorn First Fruits with produce from outside the Land. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits only with the Seven Kinds, one may not adorn First Fruits with produce from outside the Land..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi (Yannai) in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: They asked Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, may a person sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a wife? He said to them, yes. To study Torah? Yes. For his livelihood? He did not respond. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: They asked Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, may a person sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a wife? He said to them, yes. To study Torah? Yes. For his livelihood they did not ask and he did not respond. According to Rebbi Jonah it is understandable: They did not ask, therefore he did not respond. According to Rebbi Yose, if they asked him, why did he not respond? When Rebbi Ḥanania came, Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: A person may sell to marry a wife and to study Torah, and a fortiori for his livelihood.

HALAKHAH: “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan understood it from the following: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A person should not sit before the barber,” etc. We have stated “close to the afternoon prayers.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, close to darkness. Our Mishnah needs Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita and Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita needs our Mishnah. If Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that he means exactly darkness but not the afternoon prayers. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary. But if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that everywhere “afternoon prayers” is stated it means afternoon prayers, and everywhere “darkness” is stated it means darkness. Since we stated “afternoon prayers” and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “darkness”, this implies that “darkness” stated later refers to the time of afternoon prayers. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother said, our Mishnah refers to the vulgar, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated to fellows. The rabbis of Caesarea say our Mishnah is following Rebbi Jehudah, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A tailor should not leave with his needle close to sundown lest he forget and leave,” etc. It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If one of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.”The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle with ear she is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “These are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon, when they came to visit him,” etc. “This day was hard for Israel like the day on which the Golden C alf was made. Rebbi Eliezer said, on that day they filled the bushel to overflow. Rebbi Joshua said, on that day they filled the bushel to the rim. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, if it was deficient and they filled it it would have been reasonable, as with an amphora full of nuts; if you fill it with sesame seeds it will be strengthened. Rebbi Joshua said to him, if it had been full and they diminished it, it would have been reasonable, as with an amphora filled with oil; if you add water to it it dilutes the oil.”

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven,” etc. What profit does he have? Rebbi Abbahu said, for example these villagers who do not care.Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the vat was taken off. But if the vat was fixed, it is forbidden, since he will be afraid that his dye will have been absorbed and he will add water. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: The House of Hillel learn permitted work from forbidden work. Would it not be forbidden if he did it on the Sabbath? When he did similarly as long as it is still daytime it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does set traps for wild animals, or birds, of fish,” etc. Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was day. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was day. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish”. Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “They House of Shammai say, one sells to a Non-Jew,” etc. What means “a nearby destination”? It should be as Samuel said, for example as from Ḥuṭra to Nahardea; here it is the same. Some want to say, until he reaches his home. But some want to say, until he reaches his town. Rebbi Aqiba says, that he leaves the place of the door when the day becomes holy around him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Yose: But Rebbi Aqiba comes to determine following the words of the House of Hillel. One does not give to a Gentile on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere. One does not give to a dog on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not give hides to the tannery worker,” etc. How long? It should come like what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Onias, the time needed to walk four miles. And here, if he gave his clothing to the Gentile fuller and found him treating them on the Sabbath, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yudan said, he should tell him not to do it. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, for goodwill. But for a fee, he looks after his work.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not roast meat, onions, or an egg, unless they be roasted when it still is daylight,” etc. Rebbi Bun bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis: A dish which is fully cooked one may leave on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: Meat, onion, and egg shrink and it is bad for them. This one is shrinking and it is good for it, and you say so? Maybe this was said only for hot water. Rebbi Samuel came, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: It is forbidden to leave hot water which was fully heated on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dish of beef which was cooked as Ben Derosai’s food one may return on a cooking stove covered with ashes. This comes like what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One warns somebody who puts a pot on top of coals. When it will be cooked as Ben Derosai’s food it is forbidden. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: Hot water which was fully heated one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: To leave on is forbidden but to return is permitted? Maybe it was only said for the Passover sacrifice. There Rebbi Aḥa in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: The Passover sacrifice which was fully roasted one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One hangs the Passover lamb into the oven,” etc. There, we have stated: “At nightfall they went out and roasted their Passover sacrifices.” And you are saying so? Rebbi Yose said, groups are careful.

HALAKHAH: “With what may one kindle and with what may one not kindle? One kindles neither with bast.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, λύγος. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Lia, δάδινον. They said, these two are identical.

HALAKHAH: “One does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” etc. Therefore one kindles with all those mentioned earlier.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “One does not kindle with any wood product but flax,” etc. Rebbi Simeon bar Rav Isaac said it is written: to raise permanent light. They estimated to say that nothing makes a flame like flax. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, no wood product is subject to the three-by-three rule except flax and one may use it as roofing, except flax.” Rebbi Yose said, they made it like coarse or soft, as we have stated: “the coarse and the soft are not subject to the three-by-three rule.” Rebbi Eleazar said, they learned it from the Tabernacle as it is written, the Sanctuary you shall make ten gobelins, twilled byssus; and it is written, linen turbansshall be on their heads. You learn byssus from byssus, and byssus from turbans, and turbans from turbans.

HALAKHAH: “A person may not pierce an eggshell.” Why? Because it did not start at each single drop, or maybe he might forget and stir? What is the difference between them? This refined דיקלון. If you are saying, because it did not start at each single drop, it did not stop at every single drop; if you say. maybe be might forget and stir, he will not forget and stir.

HALAKHAH: “One who extinguishes a light because he is afraid of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, [so is the Mishnah:] because dangerous Gentiles, because of dangerous robbers. Rebbi Yose asked, if because of dangerous robbers one should have stated “it is permitted.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “Because of three sins women die in childbirth,” etc. There are Tannaim who state, as children. There are Tannaim who state, in childbirth. He who said as children, it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Children die because of the sin of vows. What is the reason? For the vain I did hit your sons. But he who said in childbirth, from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “Three things a person has to say in his house,” etc. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the practices of sancta, and purifying waters, and preparations for impurity, are of the most important practices and all three have been handed over to the vulgar. The practices of sancta, as we have stated: “If he said, I separated into it a quartarius of sanctum, he must be believed.” Purifying waters, as we have stated: “Everybody is trustworthy about purifying water.” Preparations for impurity, as we have stated: “About all these the vulgar is trustworthy to say that they are pure.”It should have been necessary: Kindle the light, did you give tithe, did you make an eruv, kindle? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, since you are strict with him for the easier rules he will be strict with himself with the weighty one. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac commanded his house, did you make an eruv, did you kindle the light? Why did he not say, did you give tithe? Because all he ate, he ate from the market.

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “If an oven was heated with straw or stubbles,” etc. Bar Qappara stated: It is even forbidden to lean against it. Rebbi Shammai leaned against the air space of the oven. Rebbi Mana told him, did not Bar Qapprara state: It is even forbidden to lean against it?

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One may not put an egg next to the hot water container,” etc. There, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose permits it. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted. Rebbi Yose follows his own opinion. Just as he says there, its souring is not clearly souring, so he says here, its cooking is not clearly cooking.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One may not put cold water into a hot water container which was removed,” etc. Rebbi Abba the (son of the) son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they stated this only for a cup, therefore not into itself. Rebbi Mana said, I objected before Rebbi Abba [the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba]: Rebbi Joḥanan could not have stated this on the first part [of the Mishnah] nor on the second part! “In order to heat it”, therefore to make it lukewarm is permitted. There came Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of (Rebbi) [Rav]. If to heat it, it is forbidden, if to make it lukewarm it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: May one put spices at the bottom and pour on them from above? Rebbi Jonah said, it is forbidden and pouring confers the status of primary vessel. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from this: “Both vessels used for cooking or into which it was poured boiling.” Rebbi Yose said, there a pottery vessel absorbs; spices are not cooked. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected: Did we not state, “the same holds for brass vessels.” Can one say that brass vessels absorb?

HALAKHAH: “One does not put a vessel under the light to catch the oil but when he put it there when it still was daylight it is permitted. One may not use it because it is not prepared,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it burned out when it still was day but he realized it only after it was dark? The colleagues asked: If it burned out on this Sabbath but he realized it only afterwards on the Sabbath? Rebbi Joḥanan said, nothing in its natural form is not prepared except one item. Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is not oil in the lamp in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the lamp. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected: Is not seed grain in its natural form, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the ground. They objected: Are there not eggs used for chicks which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! They were put there from the start to become chicks. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: Are there not Sukkah decorations which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! There is a difference, as Rebbi Abba Mari, Rebbi Yose’s brother, said: For the seven days they become insignificant in the Sukkah. Afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Is not lint which was scattered in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food. Rebbi Nasa objected, are there not figs put out to ferment, which dried but he did not touch, in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food.

HALAKHAH: (Mishnah: “One moves a new light but not a used one;” etc.) Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Did we not state, “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down”? They said, this is the one of Rebbi Joḥanan.

HALAKHAH: Here you say, “one does not put a vessel under the light,” to catch sparks? “But one may not put water in it since he would extinguish.” And there you say, “one may put a vessel under the light”? Here he needs the oil but there he does not need the sparks.

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: “One may store away in raw hides, which one may move.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This you are saying if they are kept in the household. But if they are kept in storage this does not apply. “And in wool flakes, which one may not move.” Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Joḥanan: This you are saying if they are kept in storage. But if they are kept in the household this does not apply.

HALAKHAH: If he took it when it still was daylight he may return it when it still is daylight. If he took it after dark he may return it after dark. If he took it when it still was daylight and the day became holy for him? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If the groove was unusable it is forbidden, but from stove to stove it is permitted, from what Rebbi Eliezer said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: I was serving the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and I brought him hot water from the lower to the upper apartment and returned it to the stove. Rebbi Jeremiah ben Rebbi Simeon said, even from a stove with little heat to a stove with much heat.

HALAKHAH: “With what may an animal go out and with what may it not go out,” etc. “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in his father’s name: Four kinds of animals are drawn by the bridle: the horse, and the mule, the camel, and the donkey.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, and its sign, so will be the plague of the horse, the mule, the camel, and the donkey, Rav said, practice follows Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. Samuel said, if it was tied to it from before the Sabbath. Ḥanin from Gophtia said before Samuel, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi does not act like this. He told him, Rav uses kleisterin, as it was stated: rams go out with kleisterin. Rebbi Aḥa bar Papa objected before Rebbi Zeˋira: But was it not stated: a rope tied to a cow may be tied to the feeding trough, the feeding trough may be tied to a cow. One understands a cow’s may be tied to the feeding trough. May from the feeding trough be tied to a cow? Would he not use the animal’s sides on the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, explain it for knots which are not permanent. Rebbi Yose said, is there a difference for sides of an animal whether the knot is permanent or not permanent? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it if he connects rope to rope.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “With what may [an animal] not go out? The camel may not go out with its pad.” Like the curved padding with which one equalizes a hump back. עָקוּד at one front leg. רָגוּל at both hind legs.

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

HALAKHAH: “With what may a woman go out,” etc. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, because she loosens them because they separate for her period and she forgets and walks with them for four cubits. Rebbi Mana said, earlier we were saying because she opens what is sewn but we were not saying anything, as Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates one may tear and open but only one may not tie. There, we have stated: “The following separate on a human: threads of wool or of linen and the ribbons on the head of girls.” Samuel said, there is no hair here; in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, but only wool. Therefore hair does not separate in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of the rabbis: One hair separates, two are in doubt, three do not separate.

HALAKHAH: Why did they decree about a nailed shoe? Some say, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages. But some say, they heard its sound and had miscarriages. And some say, they were stampeding and killing one another. What is the difference between them? הדוסטא. Accordig to him who said, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages, it is permitted. But according to him who said, they heard its sound and had miscarriages or they were stampeding and killing one another, it is forbidden. But did they not decree this in an emergency? When the emergency passed it should have been permitted. There never rose a court which undid it. Then even on a weekday! People do not usually have two pairs of shoes, one for weekdays and one for the Sabbath. It was stated: If one put a patch under it it is permitted. Rebbi Yudan bar Ismael’s feet were scratched and they did this for him.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If any of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.” The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle without ear one is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

HALAKHAH: It is written: Armed did the Children of Israel leave the Land of Egypt. This teaches that they were armed with (fifteen) [five] kinds of arms. And what is an אַלָּה? Since Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai, Rebbi Yose, stated: “When does he start to give heave from his threshing floor? When he removes the אַלָּה.” This means two-pronged fork. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? Gird your sword on your hip, o hero, your splendor and your glory. What is the rabbis’ reason? They will forge their swords into ploughs, into ploughs, and their lances into vintner’s knives, into pruning knives.

HALAKHAH: Ḥanan bar Immi said before (Rebbi) [Rav] Jehudah [in the name of] Menashia bar (Menashe) Jeremiah: But only that a young girl should not go out with an old woman’s nor an old woman with a young girl’s. But did we not state: “Girls go out with threads”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, even wound around her neck. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, there even if she cannot bring (her nose) [a thread similar] to her hair she may leave with it. But here, a young girl should not go out with an old woman’s nor an old woman with a young girl’s.

HALAKHAH: “One goes out with a tetradrachma on a ṣinnit;” ποδάγρα, gout. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, even a metal plate.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they stated only coin and stone. Therefore with a nut it is permitted, because it may be moved. Rav Ada bar Ahava said, It results that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said, what may be moved is permitted, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, what may be moved is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, one goes out with them because they are like a sandal, and one may enter the Temple Court with them. Rebbi Yannai asked, one goes out with them because they are like sandals, and one may enter the Temple Court with them, because they are not sandals? Rebbi (asked) [Mana] said, instead of asking about Samuel he should have asked about the Mishnah, “its supports are impure by stepping on, one may go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them.” Rebbi Mana said, say does its last part not disagree with Samuel? “Its supports are impure by stepping on, one may not go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them. Donkey figures are pure and one may go out with them.” What are pure donkey figures? Rebbi Abbahu said, ὄνος κατʹ ὦμον, arm’s donkey.

HALAKHAH: “Boys go out with knots,” knots of madder. “And princes with bells.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, with bells around their necks. What means “and so may everybody”? Whether children of the poor or children of the rich. Rebbi Ila said, with bells on his clothing. What means “and so may everybody”? Whether adult or child. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Zeˋira: A person may go out with bells on his clothing but he may not go out with bells around his neck. But here about adults and there about the young.

HALAKHAH: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath,” etc. What means “comprehensive”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than the principle of the Sabbatical year, since the Sabbath falls on everything but the Sabbatical year falls on agricultural work in the Land only. There we have stated: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbatical year.” What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than tithes, for the Sabbatical year falls on human food and animal feed but tithes apply to human food only. Bar Qappara stated: a comprehensive principle they said about tithes. What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than peah. for tithes apply both to food that is stored and to food which is not stored, but peah applies only to food used as stored staple. Some want to say, what means “comprehensive”? From here that there are derivatives.

We have stated: “Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” They stated in the House of Rebbi: Anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar follows our Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan follows what was stated in the House of Rebbi. But Rebbi Eliezer said, “anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” Therefore if he does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath is he not liable? Since Rav stated our Mishnah and explained it: who is the one who does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath? A child who was taken prisoner among the Gentiles. This implies that both versions are the same. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Therefore (if he does not) [if he did] know and forgot he is liable. Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that both versions are the same. They asked before Rebbi Yasa’s son: What did you hear from your father about Rebbi Yose? He said, following Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥizqiah told them, he did not say so. But Rebbi Simon bar Zavda was simply with Rebbi Yose’s son and heard from him following Rebbi Eliezer.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that he did not concede to him. (It was) [Now] Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to] him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated, “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him.

One understands Sabbath since weekdays come in the meantime. What may you say about the menstruating woman? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, explain it about an underage menstruating woman where days of purity came in the meantime. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, so did he ask him: If he came to one menstruating woman five times in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one? He answered him, he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is [not] so. Rebbi Mana asked the following: Did not Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once? Then here also he should be liable only once. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is not so. Like the rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nisa: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, and all that is derived from it as all practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.

One understands Sabbath since weekdays come in the meantime. What may you say about the menstruating woman? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, explain it about an underage menstruating woman where days of purity came in the meantime. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, so did he ask him: If he came to one menstruating woman five times in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one? He answered him, he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is [not] so. Rebbi Mana asked the following: Did not Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once? Then here also he should be liable only once. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is not so. Like the rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nisa: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, and all that is derived from it as all practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.

HALAKHAH: “The categories of work are 39.” From where that the categories of work are from the Torah? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the thirty-nine occurrences of מלאכה in the Torah. They asked before Rebbi Aḥa, everywhere where מלאכות is written it should count for two! Rebbi Ashian said, Rebbi Aḥa checked by eye the entire Torah and did not find this word written. The following is necessary: He came into the house to do his work is with them. God completed on the Seventh Day His work which He did, is with them. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Six days you shall eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day you should not do work comes to complete the 39 “works” written in the Torah.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This has been said for idol worship. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this has been said for things forbidden for usufruct. Rav Ḥisda said, this has been said for minimal quantities. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable for a purification sacrifice. There are Tannaim who state, a minimal amount. He who said he is liable for a purification sacrifice supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said a minimal amount supports Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: For example, the wad which she prepared for her menstrual period.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

HALAKHAH: “One who brings out wine to mix a cup,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of cups? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups which they said add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.

HALAKHAH: “One who brings out rope to make a handle for a box,” etc. This you are saying about soft ones but for hard ones enough to boil an easy egg.

HALAKHAH: 3. “Leather to make an amulet,” etc. There are Tannaim who state, to cover the amulet. He who says to make an amulet, if it is soft. But he who says to cover the amulet, if it is hard.

HALAKHAH: 4. What is clay soil? The gray kind. Samuel says, dust in order to cover the blood of a small bird. Samuel stated: Dust and ashes in order to cover the blood of a small bird.

HALAKHAH: 5. “Reed to make a writing pen,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But at least that it reaches to the finger joints. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understands up to here. Maybe up to here? There, we have stated: “A pen of which the writing tip was broken off is impure because of the eraser. If the eraser was broken off it is impure because of the writing tip.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understand up to here. Maybe up to here? Rebbi Yose said, any “egg” which was stated in Kelim means the actual volume of an egg. In Šabbat in the volume of a dried fig, of an egg.

HALAKHAH: 6. “Bone to fill a spoonful; Rebbi Jehudah says to make a tooth of a key.” What is חָף? A key. There, we have stated: “If the teeth were taken, it is impure because of the holes. If the holes were covered, it is impure because of the teeth.” It seems that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument is inverted. There he calls חָף a protrusion and here he calls it a key.

HALAKHAH: 7. “A potsherd (of any size) to put between one half brick,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may use it to sanctify; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Eleazar asked, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why may one not use it to sanctify? Because it is impervious to impurity . But are not vessels made of cow dung, stone vessels, earthen vessels impervious to impurity and one may use them to sanctify! But because it does not contain a quartarius. But does not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree that one may sanctify using an arbitrarily small complete clay vessel? It is that the only reason is that it does not have the appellation “vessel”. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan. It is not enough to disqualify the body but one may use it to sanctify? But this follows Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said, also the most minute amount of clay vessel.” Did not Rebbi Yose say this only for a complete one, and do we not deal here with a broken one? What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated supports Rebbi Joḥanan; what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.