halakhah

HALAKHAH: 2. Did you have to learn from the sea, just as the sea is pure so also the ship is pure? Did you not learn this from the sack? The sack may be used both on sea and on dry land; a ship can be used on sea but cannot be used on dry land. The rabbis of Caesarea say, this is about a clay vessel. Since the sack teaches only about what is written in the paragraph, this excludes clay vessels which are not mentioned in the paragraph so that the sack could have taught about it

HALAKHAH: 3. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they learned from Sinai. Moses came down on the third day of the week and told them, be prepared for three days, do not approach a woman. For any one who separated on the third day, there is (the third), the night of the fourth, and the fourth, the night of the fifth, and the fifth. On the sixth, if she ejected in the night she was impure, during the day pure. For any one who separated on the fourth day, there is the fourth, the night of the fifth, and the fifth. On the sixth, if she ejected in the night she was impure, during the day pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was on Sinai. But for future generations either four or six; Rebbi Aqiba says, forever there are five, also for future generations.

HALAKHAH: 4. “From where that anointing,” etc. As we have stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure are permitted.

HALAKHAH: 5. This is difficult. May cumin and salt combine? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: they taught this about sweeteners.

HALAKHAH: 6. It was stated: Also bad smell in any amount. Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct.

HALAKHAH: 7. It is difficult. If he continues to bring out in one forgetting, is he not liable only once? For whom is it necessary? For Rebbi Eliezer. That you should not say, many kinds should be treated like as many forgettings and he would be liable for each single one. Therefore it was necessary to say that he is liable only once.

HALAKHAH: “One who stores as seeds,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, is the Mishnah Rebbi Jehudah’s? For Rebbi Jehudah said, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi came in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this comes only for the sample, because the buyer already was satisfied. But as to seeds and medicines even for the most minute amount he is liable. If one stored it and another took it out, he is not liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar declares him liable. Where do we hold? If he took it out on the second’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is not liable; if he took it out on the first’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is liable. But we must hold when it was not explained. The rabbis say, it is a common presumption that he took it out on the second’s initiative; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says that it is a common presumption that he took it out on the first’s initiative.

HALAKHAH: 2. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah is about a basket full of green melon and squash, where part of the food is inside and part outside. But a basket full of grain, when he took out in the volume of a dried fig he is liable. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s statement disagrees, as Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A crocheted cloth part of which was inside and part outside, if he took from one side and put it down on the other he is not liable. If he lifted it, only if he lifted it entirely at the same time.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose asked: This implies that if somebody took out the volume of a dried fig on his shoulder, he is liable. Is that the carrying of the Kehatites? But it is written, the office of Eleazar, Aaron’s son, the priest: The oil for illumination, the spice incense, the permanent flour offering, and the anointing oil. The oil for illumination in his right hand, the spice incense in his left hand, the permanent flour offering of that day hanging on his arm. Where was the anointing oil? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: a small flask he had on his money belt.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable. “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”.

HALAKHAH: When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner said before Rebbi (Yasa) [Yose] in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A weaver’s beam, Rebbi declares not liable, but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, he is liable. Rebbi said to him, so I heard from your father. He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served him sitting. But was Rebbi the student of Rebbi Simeon (bar) [ben] Yoḥai? Was he not the student of Rebbi Jacob bar (Qodshai) [Qorshai]? But so he must have said to him, He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served your teacher sitting. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon came to the house of assembly, Rebbi’s face darkened. His father told him, it is correct so, for he is a lion son of a lion, but you are a lion son of a jackal. When (Rebbi Eleazar) [he] died, Rebbi sent to ask his wife in marriage. She said to him, a vessel which was used in holiness should be used in a profane way?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Where do they differ? If he himself took them but if another took them they are disgusting. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rav, he is never liable unless he take them with a grooming knife. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: The one who braids is liable because of building. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Banaya: At our place they call builder one who is plaiting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, would it not be reasonable that it should be because of weaving? The argument of Rebbi Zeˋira is inverted, for there said Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one who plaits three hairs of a human is liable because of weaving; Rebbi Zeˋira said, is it not spinning rather than weaving? And here he says so! There if they are few, here for many. That is what you say about a human, but for an animal it is pure, as it was stated: One who makes a belt under the heart, to beautify, or to fasten the bags, to hang it around an animal’s neck, is pure. That is, for simple ones. But if the are folded, whether for human or for animal they are impure. The one who applies kohl is liable because of writing; the one who puts on make-up is liable because of dyeing.

HALAKHAH: “If one throws from a private domain,” etc. Throwing is a derivative of transporting.

HALAKHAH: 2. Rav said, here there is no “not liable” but “permitted”. In Rav’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is permitted. In Samuel’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is forbidden. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: on condition that the public domain surround it from all sides. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even from one side. From these carts. Were the carts not higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Maisha: only by two persons. Everywhere you are saying, two persons acting together are not liable, but here you are saying, two persons acting together are liable. There is a difference, because this was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting. What was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting? Two carts one parallel to the other in the public domain. They were handing the planks from one to the other but not throwing. Bar Qappara stated, not to treat the planks with contempt.

HALAKHAH: 3. Our Mishnah applies if there is no hole there, but if there is a hole, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis. In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr, whether it is four by four or it is not four by four one considers the wall as carved out. In the rabbis’ opinion, if it is four by four one considers the wall as carved out, otherwise one does not consider the wall as carved out but as closed. Rav Ḥisda said, if it extends slanting. But will it not finally descend? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, explain it that it was a soft fig cake and it stuck. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the level below? He said to him, there the vegetables profit from the terrace but here people rub it and it falls down. If it would say, if there is a hole [in the wall] and it profits from the hole just as vegetables profit from the terrace, you would be justified.

HALAKHAH: 4. Not only four cubits in the sea, but even if he threw across the entire sea he is not liable, since any sea is called karmelit.

HALAKHAH: 5. Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, it they are tied together with bast. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only if they made an eruv. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. One said, if the distance between them is less than four; but the other said, even if the distance between them is four. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even if they are not ten [hand-breadths] high, it is he who said, if the distance between them is less than four [hand-breadths].

HALAKHAH: 6 So is the Mishnah: “he acted intentionally.” This is difficult. If somebody shot an arrow intending to kill a person, he was warned, and changed his intention; is that anything? Finally you have to say that it was intentional.

HALAKHAH: “How much would a builder build to become liable,” etc. What building was at the Sanctuary? They were putting the planks on top of the bases. But was this not temporary? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word, it was as though permanent. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that He would bring them into the Land, it is as if it were permanent. This implies, even from the side. This implies even if it was put on top of something else. Does it imply that building on implements is building? The bases are like soil.

HALAKHAH: 2. What kind of ploughing was in the Tabernacle? They ploughed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plough to become liable? Rebbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rebbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout.

HALAKHAH: 3. Who taught “signs”? Rebbi Yose! What means “of any language”? Even אα. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them upside down or bottom up? They were made similar to reed pens. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them inside out or outside in? The rings did prove. Should one not be concerned that maybe one would exchange? Rebbi Aḥa said, it was written slanted. Why could they not be switched? Rebbi Immi said, You shall erect the Tabernacle according to its ruling. Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.

HALAKHAH: 4. If one wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, with drinks or fruit juice on a board, he is not liable unless he wrote with permanent material on permanent material. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. But did we not state, “if they cannot be read together, he is not liable”? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, בסררה.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: 2. “The cross pieces,” the cross pieces. “The thrums,” καίρωμα. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?

HALAKHAH: 4. There, we have stated: “One who brings out wood to cook an easily cooked egg,” and here you are saying so? There one who brings out in order to dye, but here about him who dyes.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: 7. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one feed them? It comes following what we have stated there: “one does not provide water to bees and to pigeons in a dovecot,” for one cannot provide for something which is not prepared. And here it is the same.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: 2. “One makes no brine on the Sabbath.” What is the difference between brine and salt water? Brine needs a craftsman, salt water needs no craftsman. Rav Huna said, anything to which one adds salt and it dissolves is salt water, if it does not dissolve it is brine. Rebbi Abbahu said, anything where one puts in an egg and it sinks is saltwater, if it does not sink it is brine.

HALAKHAH: 3. A man asked Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana: May one drink claret on the Sabbath? He said to him, if for enjoyment it is permitted, if as medicine it is forbidden. But is that not inside the lips? Explain it, if there is danger.

HALAKHAH: 4. It is written, like vinegar for the teeth or like smoke for the eyes, and you are saying so? Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said, the Mishnah is about fruit vinegar. Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, even if you are saying as our Mishnah, it is good for a bad situation and bad for a good one.

HALAKHAH: “The following are the knots,” etc. What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. But was this not temporary? Rebbi Yose says, because they were travelling and camping by the Word, was it not permanent? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were temporary. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin needle-workers. If a thread broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin, that it should be an entity. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection.

HALAKHAH: 2. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, if one opens the hem which is connected to the garment. Rebbi Yose said, if one opens a [split] garment which is made like two sheets. If shoe or sandal laces were dislocated, one removes and returns them, only one may not knot them. If its nose was dislocated, there are Tannaim who state, it is permitted to put it back, and there are Tannaim who state, it is forbidden to put it back. They wanted to say, he who says that it is permitted, if there is one hole; he who says that it is forbidden, if there are two holes. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in both cases it is following him who says that there are two holes. What about it? He who says that it is permitted, if they are loose; he who says that it is forbidden, if they are squeezed.

HALAKHAH: 3. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, folding by two persons is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On the Sabbath, two together may not fold. If one folds on a footstool it is as if two persons were folding. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for eating and drinking. Since this mouth [is bothersome] (is smelling), they permitted him to be occupied with words of the Torah. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for being occupied with words of the Torah. A baraita supports either one of them: What does one do? Either he sits down and eats or he sits and studies words of the Torah. One verse says, it is a Sabbath for the Eternal, and another verse says, an assembly for the Eternal, your God. How is that? Give part of it to the study of Torah and part to eat and to drink. Rebbi Abbahu said, a Sabbath for the Eternal, rest like the Eternal. Since the Eternal rested from saying, you also should rest from saying.

HALAKHAH: “All holy Scriptures,” etc. What means “whether they are used for reading or not used for reading”? Whether they contain errors or do not contain errors. Was it not stated: If a scroll contains two or three errors on every page, one corrects it and reads from it; with four one does not read from it. Since we have stated, “why does one not read in them? Because of neglect of the House of Study;” this implies that there is a difference between Torah and Prophets and Hagiographa.

HALAKHAH: Our Mishnah if it is not connected; but if it is connected it is like its body. One understands the case of the book with the book. The case of phylacteries with the phylacteries? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira understands it from the following: The Eternal’s angel is camping around those who fear Him and saves them. Similarly, it says. then these men were bound in their coats.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this is Rebbi Nehemiah’s who said, it can be taken only if necessary. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of the rabbis there is that everything in the house is prepared, but here if you would say so he would save from today for tomorrow. The Mishnah is from Rebbi הונדקס who said, one always saves food for three meals. Explain it if the fire started Friday evening before he ate. What should one say on the day of Atonement? Should he not save anything following the rabbis? Everybody agrees that one saves food for one meal because of the danger.

HALAKHAH: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi Yose who said, “one always saves food for three meals”? Since all is one body, all of it counts as one meal.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose says, 18 garments.” And they are these: The burnus, arm cover, and money belt, and felt cap, and a kafia, and a linen tunic, and a woolen shirt, and two felt stockings, two garters, and two breeches, two shoes, and the hat on his head, and the belt on his hips, and shawls on his arms.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Before they are on fire. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal in the name of Rav: If a scroll started burning at one side one puts water on the other side; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If the fire burned on both sides one spreads it out and reads in it; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If a toga started burning at one side one puts water on the other side; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If the fire burned on both sides one takes it and wraps oneself in it; if it was extinguished it was extinguished.

HALAKHAH: In the days of Rebbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rebbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rebbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state, in any case of danger to life one does not say that [the necessary work] be done by women or minors, but [it should be done] even by adults, even by Jewish persons. “It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Shiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due. Immediately there formed a cloud which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander 50 denarii.” The Sages said, there was no need for him to do that. A Nabatean was in the neighborhood of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; the Nabatean wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

HALAKHAH: “One may put a pot over a light.” It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. An egg which was laid on the Sabbath one props up against [a vessel] so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one may cover it with a vessel.

HALAKHAH: For himself and for a Jew? Let us hear from the following. Samuel was received at a Persian’s. The light went out. The Persian went and wanted to light it; Samuel turned his face around. When he saw him occupied with his securities he knew that he did not light for him; Samuel again turned his face. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, this implies that for himself and for a Jew it is forbidden. Rebbi Jonah said, there is a difference since one does not bother a person to leave his house. Rebbi Eliezer said, if it is since one does not bother a person to leave his house, why did Samuel turn his face around?

HALAKHAH: “All implements may be taken on the Sabbath,” etc. There is spelled out more for doors of a house and there is spelled out more for doors of implements. There is spelled out more for doors of a house, for even if they were unhinged on Friday they may not be moved on the Sabbath. There is spelled out more for doors of implements, for even if they were unhinged on the Sabbath they may be used on the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: “A person may take a hammer to crack nuts.” Therefore not to open nuts not. Is the Mishnah Rebbi Nehemiah’s, since Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need?

HALAKHAH: In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, a stick which he prepared in order to check the olives. How did he know? If it was dirtied by fluid it was proof that the work of loading was completed; otherwise it was proof that the work of loading was not completed. Rebbi Mana said to him, Samuel only stated that he was fishing out olives with it. A stick which one prepared to close the window, should we say that he closes with it if it was tied and hanging, otherwise he may not close with it? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it is prepared even if it is neither tied nor hanging.” Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging? Rebbi Yudan said, since he removed it and took it into his hand it becomes similar to a key.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah who said, “they may be taken only for a need.” Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. One said, for a need, for a need of itself; not for a need, not for a need of itself. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself. But the other said, for a need, for a need of itself or of its place; not for a need, not for a need of itself or of its place. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself or of its place. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one moves full [containers] for no need and about empty [containers] which he intended to fill. Where did they disagree? About those which he has no intention to fill, where the House of Shammai prohibit and the House of Hillel permit. Does the House of Shammai come to parallel Rebbi Nehemiah? You say, practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah, but practice does not follow the House of Shammai.

HALAKHAH: “Glass to scrape the head of the weaver’s beam.” And here, you are saying so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Here if it is thick, there if it is sharp. Some want to say, here about moving, there about bringing out.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rebbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rebbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

HALAKHAH: What is a dragged bolt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rebbi Jehudah . There came Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rebbi Yannai [the father-in-law of] Rebbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rebbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar objected, did we not state “bundles of straw”? Is straw not as if dispersed? “One removes even four or five baskets,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since we have stated there: “The contributions for the Temple were removed in three baskets of three seah each.”

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: He explained this about one who forgot. A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?

HALAKHAH: “One does not use midwifery for animals,” etc. What is help? “He brings wine and blows it into his nostrils, and puts his hand down and receives him, and moves her teats and puts in his mouth. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also one makes the animal love on a holiday. How does one do that? One puts a block of salt on her belly and she wants to nurse her son.”

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

HALAKHAH: Circumcising he shall circumcise. A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering. One for circumcision, the other for the fibers. So far following Rebbi Aqiba who said, these are expressions of additions. From where for Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, going I went, desiring you desired, stealing (you were) stolen? Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions, from there that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering; one for circumcision, the other for the fibers. Rav said, circumcising he shall circumcise, from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised. Circumcising he shall circumcise, from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile. Rebbi Levi said, it is written: But you have to keep My Covenant, you and yours.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “One washes the baby.” It was stated in the House of Rebbi: “One washes the circumcision.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who says, “one washes the baby”. Rebbi Yose said, you are forced to say, one washes the baby. Samuel stated, one never withholds either oil or warm water from a wound on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yose said, my teacher Rebbi Zeˋira always was coming to say to me, state in your Mishnah, not only this but one sprinkles warm water on a wound on the Sabbath. If you are saying, “one washes the circumcision”, what is the difference between an adult and a baby?

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

HALAKHAH: It is possible that a child is circumcised on his first day. How is this possible? If she gave birth and then converted, he is circumcised on his first day. If she converted and then gave birth, he is circumcised on his eighth day. Jacob from Kefar-Naboraia asked Rebbi Ḥaggai, then if he was born during twilight, should he not be circumcised at twilight? He told him, if I and you were entering the same door, could we make it simultaneous?

HALAKHAH: “The following are the fibers which invalidate a circumcision.” Rebbi Avuna in the name of Rav Jeremiah: If it covers most of the height of the corona. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if it covers most of the top of the corona. Rebbi Tebi in the name of Samuel: One checks at the time of an erection.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, one hangs the yeast-sieve,” etc. It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree that one sets up new tents on the Sabbath. Where do they disagree? About extending, for Rebbi Eliezer says one adds on a holiday but one does not add on a Sabbath, but the Sages say, one does not add on a holiday, and it is not necessary to say on a Sabbath.” Do we not deal here with an addition? Rebbi Abbin bar Cahana said, explain it about a new yeast-sieve which he turns into an implement. A fortiori.

HALAKHAH: “One may add water to the yeast,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only he should not make it like a bosom. There is a question about the following: May one turn it over that the bosom is made by itself? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one may turn it on its side on condition not to do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said, so is the Mishnah: But one may put it in vinegar in his presence. Rav Huna said, they taught only lukewarm water; therefore it is permitted in cold water. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, even in cold water it is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, did they not teach only lukewarm water? (But) {He said to him], did we exert ourselves for nothing

HALAKHAH: “One cleans up after an animal to be fattened,” etc. Because what the animal to be fattened leaves over, the grazing one eats. The following is in question: May one take from before one animal and give it before another animal? Is that not the Mishnah, “one may take from before one animal and put it before another on the Sabbath”? The Mishnah is about the same kind; what he asks is about another kind. It was stated, a person may take from before a donkey and put before a cow; from before an animal whose mouth is repelling to an animal whose mouth is nice.

HALAKHAH: “Straw on a bed.” Our Mishnah: if he did not sleep on it yesterday; but if he slept on it yesterday it is like its body. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, the earlier generations were asking, may he stir it by his fingertips? Rebbi Yannai said, the balding is bald, the deprived is deprived, pour cold water on the shivering, the house fell on the dweller in it. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, this is the rule for the poor man.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the roof as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they do not compare. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed stakes are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine or squash.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shadow it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav Oshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

HALAKHAH: “The legitimization of an alley,” etc. What laths? Two laths and beam following the House of Shammai? Laths but no beam following the House of Hillel? Three [hand-breadths wide] following Rebbi Yose? Arbitrarily small following the rabbis? Let us hear from the following: “It happened that Rebbi Eliezer went to his student Rebbi Yose ben Perora at Oblin. He showed him an alley where there was only one lath. He told him, make it two laths. He said to him, what? Are you telling me to close it off? He told him, let it be closed; there is an argument for the domains of the Sabbath in this respect?” This implies three following Rebbi Yose. If you would say, arbitrarily small following the rabbis, does arbitrarily small close off?

HALAKHAH: “The beam about which they spoke,” etc. Rebbi Abba said, to accommodate a row of tiles lengthwise. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to accommodate a row of tiles crosswise. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Ashian said, strength is between them. In the opinion of the rabbis, forty tiles. In the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, twenty tiles.

HALAKHAH: “Wide enough to carry a tile,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, strong even if it is not wide. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, since you are saying that practice follows this one and that one, one may follow this one or that one without worry. Rebbi Mana said, since it was said that practice follows the rabbis, one disregards individuals and acts following the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “If it was made of straw or reeds,” etc. For whom was this needed? For Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, “wide enough even if not strong enough.”

HALAKHAH: “The laths about which they spoke,” etc. The Mishnah if they were distant from the wall. But if they were leaning against the wall even Rebbi Yose will agree. And it was stated thus: If one made laths for an alley, if they are less than three [hand-breadths] from the ground or they were within three [hand-breadths] from the wall, it is permitted. Three only if what is standing be more than the empty space.

HALAKHAH: “One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rebbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for him who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for him who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it would slip off, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it would slip off, would he notice? Rebbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rebbi Aḥa. (They said to him) [He said to them], it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice in case it slipped off you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice in case it slipped off not so much more? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa.

HALAKHAH: “If a caravan rested in an area of difficult access,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of (Rebbi Ḥasdai) [Rav Ḥisda]: For whom was this needed? For Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, (the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehuda.) But he agrees here, and it was stated thus: One makes partition with everything, even camel saddles, even tubs, even camels, on condition that between two saddles there not be space for a saddle, between two tubs there not be space for a tub, between two camels there not be space for a camel, and on condition that no standing wall be opposite standing wall and breach opposite breach, but a standing wall opposite a breach and a breach opposite a standing wall.

HALAKHAH: “One may surround by three ropes,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they said this only about ten or more than ten; therefore no less than ten. But was it stated thus? If one brought a wall of seven hand-breadths and raised it less than three from the ground, is it permitted? There you are saying, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed, and here you should be saying, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed. If you want to object, object to the following: If one brought a wall of slightly more than (four) [seven] hand-breadths and raised it less than two hand-breadths from the ground, should it come following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four hand-breadths, on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space.

HALAKHAH: “One surrounds with sticks, on condition,” etc. One surrounds with sticks for a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. This implies that an individual needs woof and warp. So Rebbi Jehudah differentiates between an individual and a caravan; do the rabbis not differentiate between an individual and a caravan? Let us hear from the following: “If a caravan rested on a hill ten [hand-breadths] high, or in a depression ten [hand-breadths] deep, or in a garden fenced in by a stone wall, one carries in it even if it is a kor or two kor, (one carries in it up to two bet se’ah), on condition that they do not leave an area of two bet se’ah unoccupied.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: even with camel saddles, even with tubs. The word of Rav Huna implies, only by humans. For Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥuna, to one or two one gives two bet se’ah, to three one gives six bet se’ah, from there on by proportion.

HALAKHAH: “One makes planks for wells,” etc. Since what is breached is more than what is standing he makes double columns but not simple ones, which proves by itself that it is because of access to the well. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: You are reaching here what are the limits of domains of the Sabbath, for if he did so at (one) place and then threw there four cubits in the public domain he would be liable. Rebbi Yose said, since you were lenient with him about what is breached may be more than what is standing, you are strict with him in another matter since everywhere else one makes a plank of four hand-breadths but here he makes a plank of six hand-breadths.

HALAKHAH: “It is permitted to make them close to the well,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: This is its measure. With this measure even though the camel is entirely outside it is permitted. Less than this measure even if the kid goat is entirely inside it is forbidden. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, enough for a camel and its camel driver. Does he disagree? In every case where the cow stretches its neck, the camel bends its neck. Why do you want this? Could not the cow stand in the public domain and eat in a private domain? Rebbi Yose said, there it is about one who [provides] for it, but here if it eats by itself.

HALAKHAH: According to Rebbi Jehudah, is the well included in the measure of two [bet] se’ah? Let us hear from the following: If a well is two bet se’ah one may not go farther away than for the head and most of the body of a cow. This implies that the well is included in the measure of two [bet] se’ah.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted, as we have stated there: “And similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not inverted. Rebbi Jeremiah said, for he is of Rav Jehudah’s opinion, as Rav Jehudah said, that is if it is open to a domain of difficult access. But if it was open to the public domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, how does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam at each side but the Sages say a lath and a beam on one side and he shall make a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? Here about ten [cubits], there about thirteen. The words of the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rav Hoshaia asked my father, how large can the breach of an alley be in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah? And he told him, thirteen [cubits]. And here he says so? The Rabbis of Caesarea say, there what is standing is more than what is breached but here what is breached is more than what is standing.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “In addition, Rebbi Jehudah ben Bava said,” etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, they inferred it from the courtyard of the Tabernacle: the length of the courtyard 100 cubits wide 50 by 50. 50 times 100 are 5’000. 70 by 70 are 5’000 minus 100, and we have stated “seventy cubits and a remainder.” And Samuel stated, they stated cubits and two thirds of a cubit. Seventy times two thirds and seventy times two thirds make 140 thirds each; 140 thirds and 140 thirds are 93⅓. There is missing from there 4/9 for the corner, there remain nineteen thirds minus one ninth. As we have stated, there is a slight difference which the Sages could not compute.

HALAKHAH: The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.” And here he says so? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Jehudah treated it as a house.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it only contains a cistern,” etc. It was stated, “Rebbi Eliezer says, if its length exceeds its width even by one cubit one may not carry there.” This disagrees with R. Jonathan. “Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width one carries in there,” this agrees with Rebbi Jonathan. We also have stated, “Kilaim in a quarter. Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Illai said, I heard from Rebbi Eliezer:” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this Mishnah is about two bet seah collected from the bet kor.

HALAKHAH: “With anything one may make an eruv or participate,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated there, “with anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. One makes an eruv for courtyards and participates both for courtyards and for domains. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, as it was stated: one may make an eruv with anything eaten raw as is; with bread, one does not make an eruv with it. Garlic and onions, in the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one does not make an eruv with them, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Meïr spent a Sabbath at Ardaksam; there came a person who said, I made an eruv with onions and Rebbi Meïr restricted him to his four cubits. Even though Rebbi Meïr said, with everything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, on condition that it be something eaten raw as is. Arum and colocasia: in the rabbis’ opinion one does not make an eruv with.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One may make an eruv with demay, and with First Tithe.” Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, is our Mishnah not following the House of Shammai? As we have stated, “of demay, the House of Shammai declare invalid but the House of Hillel declare valid. Of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is valid.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If he deposited it in a tree more than ten hand-breadths high,” etc. It is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]. Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadth it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four [hand-breadths], since one may tilt it and annul the private domain created by it, it implies that his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If it rolled outside the Sabbath boundary,” etc. They said only “if it became impure.” A doubt whether it became impure when it still was daylight, a doubt whether it became impure in the night. But if there was a doubt whether it was pure or impure one may use it for an eruv. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: They followed the status quo ante.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “A person may make his eruv conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his ˋeruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. (But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not.) Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a Sage comes from the East,” etc. Some Tannaim state, to the West. He who says, in the East, about these Sages. He who says, in the West, about a fundraiser.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. “But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side.” So is the Mishnah: Either one makes an eruv to one side for two days or one does not make an eruv at all. Rebbi Eliezer agrees that one cannot make an eruv for half a day in the South and one for half a day in the North, for half a day in the South and one for half a day (in the North) for the people of his place. They told him, just as you did not split the day for us, so do not split two days for us. They agree that he should not put them in a basket. Rebbi Abba said, that he should not forget and eat it. If he did put it into a basket, he should bring the basket there. If he eats one of them he is a donkey driver-camel driver.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented,” etc. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

HALAKHAH: “And he says if today is holiday my words should be void but he gives a name to his tithes but does not eat from it. On the second [day] he gives a name to his tithes and eats from it.” Rav’s argument seems inverted. There he treats it as one sanctity but here he treats it as two sanctities. There it is one long sanctity but here one is holy, the other profane. The rabbis’ argument seems inverted. There they treat it as two sanctities, but here they make it one sanctity. There a holiday next to a Sabbath is like weekday next to Sabbath but here both are equal. The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about the two days of the New Year which are an institution of the early prophets

HALAKHAH: Paragraph: “Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos said, the reader”, etc. Because he says “whether it be today or tomorrow.” Or it comes following what Rebbi Jacob the son of Rebbi Aḥa said, the reader on New Year’s Day does not have to mention the New Moon. Also here it is so.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was taken out by Gentiles,” etc. Otherwise what would we say? He should be considered like someone who left with permission and he should have 2’000 cubits in every direction. Therefore [it is necessary] to say that “he only has four cubits.” From where the four cubits? Stay everybody at his spot. And from where 2’000 cubits? A person should not leave his place on the Seventh Day. Or switching, as (we have stated) [it was stated so:] “Issy ben Aqiba says “place, place”. It is said here place, and it is said there, I shall Give you a place. Since the place mentioned there includes 2’000 cubits, so the place mentioned here includes 2’000 cubits.” “The four cubits which they mentioned are his full length and outstretched arms. Rebbi Jehudah says, he and three cubits, so he can take an amphora from above his head and put it below his feet.” If he relieves himself, he relieves himself at the side; if he prays, he prays in the diagonal.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Once they only entered the port,” etc. Rabban Gamliel had a telescope where he could estimate with his eyes in the plane. And why before nightfall? Even after nightfall; is this not Rabban Gamliel’s? Explain it if the port was larger than two bet se’ah, or the walls were not ten [hand-breadths] high but were not open wider than ten [cubits] nor what was standing was opposite what was standing and what was breached opposite the breached.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left with permission,” etc. For otherwise what would we say? That he should be treated like somebody who left by compulsion and he should have only four cubits. Therefore it was necessary to say, “he has 2’000 cubits in each direction.” Rav Ḥuna says, only if four cubits each intersect with the domain of Tiberias and with the domain of Magdala. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Even if he went to Magdala and returned he is as if he had not left. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: So far if he left in error. Even if he left intentionally? Rebbi Phineas said, the Mishnah says so: “for all those who leave to save may return to their place.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody slept on the road,” etc. They said, was not Rebbi Tarphon’s house of study within 2’000 cubits? Or maybe he made himself part of his town when it was still daytime? It was found stated: In the morning the sun shone. They told him, rabbi, here the town is before you, please enter.