halakhah

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody slept on the road and did not realize until after night fell,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥasdai. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri: Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, when he was sleeping he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah says, even awake and he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah’s statement follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s (and exceeds Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s). For Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, if he was awake and did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If they were two, and some of the cubits of one,” etc. Even though Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos disagrees with the rabbis about the cubits he agrees with them here about the environs of towns.

HALAKHAH: If one recognized and one did not recognize; the one who recognized may go with the one who did not recognize and the one who did not recognize may go with the one who recognized.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Simeon says, to what is this similar,” etc. “If somebody was on the road and is afraid lest it get dark,” etc. “If he does not know or is not conversant with practice,” etc. “That is what they said, the poor person makes an eruv with his feet,” etc. Rebbi Meïr is of the opinion, the main point of an eruv is by a loaf. Why did they say, by his feet? To make it easy for the poor who has no loaf. And Rebbi Jehudah said, the main point of an eruv is by his feet. Why did they say, by a loaf? To make it easy for the rich person that he does not have to go out by his feet.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody started to go to another town.” One may give this two interpretations. If he said, I shall make an eruv for you and your townspeople, and made the eruv for his townspeople but not for him. He is forbidden to go in that direction but permitted all other directions in his town; they are permitted to go in that direction but forbidden all other directions in their town. One may give it another interpretation. If he said, I shall make an eruv for you and your townspeople and made the eruv neither for his townspeople nor for him. He is permitted to go in that direction for his feet already acquired for him the day before; they are forbidden to go in that direction but permitted all other directions in his town.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left the Sabbath domain,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena and Rav Ḥasdai both are saying, he said only “two”. Therefore could he enter with two and a little bit? Since this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, as Rebbi Eleazar said, “for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter.” Rebbi Yose told him, one says at the end, “three he may not re-enter,” therefore three minus a little bit he may re-enter. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Eleazar said is about one who left, therefore not about one who stayed overnight. It was found stated, one is like the other. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Simeon said is about one who stayed overnight, therefore not about one who left. It was found stated, one is like the other.

HALAKHAH: “How does one complete towns,” etc. “A house is recessed,” one moves it out in line with the town; “a superstructure is protruding,” one moves the town out in line with it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One gives a fore-court to the city,” etc. Rav Ḥuna in the name of [Rav]: Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Meïr explained: From the city wall, why does the verse say, outwards? From here that one gives a fore-court to the city. The rabbis explained, outwards, why does the verse say, from the city wall? From that one does (not) give a fore-court to the city. Does this not mean that one gives a fore-court to the city? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abuna, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba, the Mishnah is finished.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One only measures with a rope of 50 cubits,” etc. How much is the measure of the Sabbath domain? 40 ropes. “Neither less” since it can be tightened and increases, “nor more” since it gets loose and loses. Some Tannaim state, one measures with a linen rope, but some Tannaim state, with a chain rope, and some Tannaim state, with a rope of four cubits. Rebbi Joshua said, there is no truer measure than with chains, but what can I do since in Prophets it is written ropes, a linen twine was in his hand and a measuring rod.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Surveys may only be made by professionals,” etc. One does not listen to a non-professional who added.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph: “A village which is the property of one person and becomes owned by many,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One does not make an eruv in parts. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument is inverted since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? It was not said about this but about the following: Even a big city like Antioch, if it has a single gate one may make an eruv. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One does not make an eruv in parts. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if people in an alley put a beam (in) [at the entrance] of the alley then these are permitted and those are prohibited. If both of them put it up, both are prohibited. What does he do? He puts the beam at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. If five alleys opened into one alley and they put their beam in the middle of the alley then these are permitted and those are prohibited. If both of them put it up, both are prohibited. What does he do? He puts the beam at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. Rebbi Phineas immigrated here. He looked at the entrance of the market of the shearers and said to them, did you split your eruv? Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom told him, it was made to reinforce the houses.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody was in the East,” etc. Because of the difficulty did Bar Qappara ask, the East of his son and the West of his son? One understands “if there are from his place to his house 2’000 cubits but to his eruv more than this, he is permitted up to his house but forbidden to his eruv.” “If to his eruv be 2’000 cubits but to his house more than that, he is permitted up to his eruv but forbidden to his house”?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “The people of a large town walk through all of a small town,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “The people of a large town walk through all of a small town, the people of a small town do not walk through all of a large town. How is that?” There is no “how is that”.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Aqiba told them, do you not agree with me,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The one who acquires rest in a fore-court has it easier than one who puts his eruv in a fore-court. He who acquires rest in a fore-court walks in its entirety and outside of it 2’000 cubits. He who puts his eruv in a fore-court only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If one said, rest should be acquired for me in the fore-court? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr is of the opinion, the main point of an eruv is by a loaf. If he puts his eruv in a fore-court he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv. Rebbi Jehudah said, the main point of an eruv is by his feet. If he said, rest should be acquired for me in the fore-court, he walks in its entirety and outside of it 2’000 cubits.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard,” etc. “A Non-Jew’s courtyard is like a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral.” The rabbis objected to Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, would the animal not forbid? Just as an animal forbids so the Gentile forbids. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob objected to the rabbis: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, what would the animal forbid? Just as an animal does not forbid so the Gentile does not forbid.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and following Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, and we asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? We asked about it, we would think to say that this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “In a courtyard where one dweller forgot to make an eruv,” etc. “But theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. May this be repeated cyclically? The students of Rav in the name of Rav: it may be repeated cyclically. Samuel said, it may not be repeated cyclically. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. But did we not state: “If they ceded their rights to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden”? He explains it that the Mishnah treats different cases.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say,” etc. “When may one start giving away rights?” Is the Mishnah so: “When may one start ceding rights? The House of Shammai say as long as it is daylight, but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark”? So is the Mishnah: The House of (Shammai) [Hillel] say, when it gets dark; because otherwise it would be of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the strictures of the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: They stated this in commercial practice. Everybody with wine, since he does not care about mixing, it does not need an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other, since he cares about mixing, it needs an eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah refers to the case that all is in one vessel. Rebbi Zeriqan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that they are used to drink οἰνόγαρον. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus says, in every case they are forbidden until they make an eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Ze`ira: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Meïr. Which [statement of] Rebbi Meïr? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Meïr who said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr who said that one may not make an eruv for a person without his knowledge. In the opinion of Rebbi Mana, following Rebbi Ze`ira, in the opinion of Rav following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Five groups who rested in one big hall,” etc. The big hall for them is like a courtyard for houses. If there were tents there, it is as if they were houses. Where do we hold? If the tents reach to the ceiling, everybody agrees that every group has to contribute to the eruv. If the tents do not reach to the ceiling, everybody agrees that one eruv is valid for all of them. But we must hold that the tents were ten [hand-breadths] high. They equally agree that if they join in dough and dishes that one eruv is valid for all of them. Rebbi Ashian asked, then even if part of them dwell in separate rooms or on upper floors?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Brothers sharing property who were eating at their father’s table,” etc. Where is the main dwelling? Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Samuel disagreed. One said, at the place of their bread, but the other said, at the place of sleeping. We did not know who said what but since Samuel said, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is rabbinically forbidden, he must say, at the place of their bread. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel, “Brothers who were eating”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah is if they are sustained by their father. In any case, are they not partners in what they are eating? Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Samuel explained to me that their father gives them property rights only for what they are eating. Then even if the eruv does not come to them? They treated it as a house where they deposited the eruv. Samuel said, he and his sons and the people of his house make an eruv with one loaf. Does he disagree? There he says, at the place of their bread, and here he says so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it. This is similar to what Rebbi Aḥawa bar Rebbi Ze`ira said, one may make an eruv with half a loaf. But we have stated: “Even if it was baked from a se’ah and was sliced one may not use it for eruv”, and you are saying so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If five courtyards were open to one another,” etc. “But forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses”. But if they were open to one another but not open to the alley they would be forbidden even if they made an eruv. Rebbi Yasa said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s, since Rebbi Aqiba said, a right of access prohibits.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Two courtyards, one inside the other,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s since Rebbi Aqiba said, the right of access makes it forbidden . Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, forbidden right of access makes it forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If one of the outer courtyard forgot,” etc. If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv, the outer one is forbidden since they do not have an eruv; the inner one is forbidden because they put their eruv at a forbidden place. If one of the inner courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv, the inner one is forbidden since they do not have an eruv; the outer one is forbidden because they put their eruv at a forbidden place, since the right of access makes it forbidden. “If one of the outer courtyard forgot and did not make the eruv;” one understands that the outer one is forbidden because they have no eruv. Why the inner one? Because they put their eruv at a forbidden place. But if they did not put their eruv at a forbidden place? But because the right of access makes it forbidden. There is no right of access which makes it forbidden! Rebbi Yasa said, because they put it at one place they all were made one domain.

HALAKHAH: “If a window between two courtyards,” etc. Lattice work diminishes it for the laws of Sabbath, but it does not diminish for the laws of presumed possession. Straw and provender do not diminish in it; pebbles and provender do diminish in it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if grasses grew in it, they do not diminish it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Therefore straw to be disregarded cannot be disregarded. Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Some state “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv.” Some state, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin.” For him who says “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv”, “less than this” refers to the plank. For him who says, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin,” “less than this” refers to the space.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: “Each fills his pail and feeds from his side.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when we were sitting before Menaḥem we used to say, lest you say that he is not like one taking down tents but one who supports tents, for if the straw was flattened he supports it by his pail. Rav Hoshaia asked: What if he used a sheet and supported it by a chair? It is meant here temporarily, but it is meant there for permanence.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. It was stated: He cannot transfer rights to the amphora which he has in the cellar. Rav Hoshaia said, lest he forget and drink from it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Why does he notify? By practice. Does this not imply that he does not transfers rights to the food proper? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if rats dragged it away.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rav said, many are seventeen, few are sixteen. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any if it were distributed there would be the volume of a dried fig for everybody are many, otherwise they are few. (Paragraph.) They wanted to say that they do not disagree; what Rav said follows Rebbi Meïr, and he who follows Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, why does one make eruv of courtyards? Because of peaceful relations. It happened that a woman was hostile to another and sent her her eruv through her son. She took him, embraced him, and kissed him. He went and told it before his mother. She said, obviously she loves me and I did not know it. As a consequence they made peace. That is what is written its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths peace.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that money does not transfer title as word of the Torah. Then even if he comes to the grocer? There is a difference, maybe he would forget and sell it. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: My father did not say so but: “But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him.” This implies that money does transfer title as word from the Torah. “They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him,” because the grocer will transfer title through a third person. “Because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement;” the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: “How does one participate for domains,” etc. One does not state “one transfers rights.” Why does one not state “one transfers rights”? Samuel said, there we stated that “one transfers rights,” one has to transfer rights; but here, where we did not state “one transfers rights”, one does not have to transfer rights. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad maius. If there, where eruvin of courtyards are a rabbinic institution you are saying that one has to transfer rights, not so much more eruvin of domains which are words of the Torah? Rav follows Rebbi Joḥanan, (and) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to treat all domains equally.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Meïr says, on a weekday, when he has nothing to eat, he eats little bread. On the Sabbath, when he has something to eat, he eats a lot of bread. Rebbi Jehudah says, on a weekday, when he has nothing to eat, he eats a lot of bread. On the Sabbath, when he has something to eat, he eats little bread.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Is it not of the lower ones? Rebbi Yudan said, this implies that if Ruben’s ruin stands in Simeon’s domain and the latter uses it, it is as if it were his.

HALAKHAH: New paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: This you only say referring to a porter’s lodge of a single family dwelling. But for the porter’s lodge of the many it is an eruv and he who dwells there forbids for you.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. This is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says, a locked house forbids. Could he not come by an eruv, or transgress and come? Mar Uqban in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi (Simeon) [Meïr].

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. The words of the rabbis disagree, as Rebbi Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if the partition is lowered into the water to lower a pail. Do not two different domains use the same domain? They supposed to say that no pail moves more than four hand-breadths. Rebbi Tevelai in the name of Rav: The rules of a ruin do not apply to water. If there was a ceiling, one considers it as if it went down and locked. If there was a cross-beam, one considers it as if it went down and locked.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. The Mishnah if it is deep ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths] and open on both sides. If it is open on one side one puts a beam or a lathe on that side. If it is open on both sides one puts a beam or a lathe on one side and makes the shape of a door at the other. Do not two different domains use the same domain? Explain it if there were houses on one side.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water to lower a pail. Do not two different domains use the same domain? Rav Huna said, only if the partition be within three hand-breadths of the balcony.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: “All rooftops of a town form one domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel disagree. Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If they made an eruv. But if they did not have to make an eruv, he explains it if all [houses] were the property of one person. Our Mishnah if all of them were climbing up either on a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder. But if all were climbing up using an Egyptian ladder except for one using a Tyrian, the Tyrian becomes a door and the remaining ones are as if climbing up and climbing down.

HALAKHAH: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Our Mishnah [refers to] one roof only, but on another roof it is forbidden. If it is not level, but if it is level it is permitted. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Should one not be able to move there up to the place of the partitions? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥiyya: What Samuel said, on this Sabbath itself, what the Mishnah deals with the next Sabbath. Where do we hold? If they made one eruv together, they should be permitted both on this and on the next Sabbath. If they did not make any eruv, they should be forbidden both on this and on the next Sabbath. The case happened as it happened. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: When each of them made separate eruvin, nevertheless the large one is permitted since it is breached along its entire length and the small one is forbidden since it was not breached along its entire length.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Zeriqa, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Eleazar said this only for the place of partitions if the main parts had been removed on both sides, and only four [handbreadths]. Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Illa both are saying, it is forbidden not at the place of partitions, but at the place of partitions even the rabbis agree. Rebbi Zeriqan said, many times I explained [the Mishnah] with Rebbi Jacob bar Abun and never heard this from him. They said to him, does it not happen that one person hears something which another does not hear? Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: if the main partitions had been removed on both sides, and only if it is level.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Why do I need “on both sides”? Even on one side! Does this not follow Rav, as Rav said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: It is a disagreement. He who says there by one plank, here also by one plank; he who says there by two planks, here also by two planks. If it became breached in the middle it is permitted; Samuel said it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if that of Samuel is not what he learned, it is difficult. If one entire side was breached? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is [the case of] the porch; if it were a porch, would it not be permitted?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rav Huna said, no public domain is roofed. Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, did you not learn from the desert, and was the desert not roofed? Our Mishnah does not say so, but “and similarly open bridges, one carries under them the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” It only says “but the Sages forbid it;” therefore there is no liability of a purification offering.

HALAKHAH: ““He who finds tefillin,” etc. “He who finds tefillin brings them in pair by pair;” as clothing, one on his head and one on his arm. “Rabban Gamliel says, two by two,” two on his head and two on his arm.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Eudaimon in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the case of a baby in danger. His colleague objected to him: If in the case of a baby in danger should he not carry him in his hand? He answered him, if he can bring him in a permitted way.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. The Mishnah: On the threshold it is permitted, but outside the threshold it is forbidden. Explain it that he was sitting there reading when it still was daytime, or he forgot and took it out. Before it reaches ten hand-breadths he rolls it back to himself. After it reaches ten hand-breadths it is forbidden. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s who said that it is forbidden to use the airspace within ten hand-breadths.

HALAKHAH: It speaks only about one, but two are forbidden, for two domains cannot use one domain. If it is not four wide. But if it is four wide, that is what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Not only “a person may stand in a private domain and move something in the public domain, in the public domain and move something in the private, on condition that he not move it more than four cubits.” Rav said, a Mishnah says so, “A person may not stand in a private domain and unlock in the public domain, in the public domain and unlock in a private domain unless there was made for him a partition ten hand-breadths high, the words of Rebbi Meïr.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. One understands “in a private domain and drink in the public domain.” “In the public domain and drink in a private domain,” is his mouth not higher than ten hand-breadths? There is a difference since it is running off downwards. It was stated: A camel whose head and most of its body is inside one force-feeds inside, outside one force-feeds outside. One understands “inside one force-feeds inside.” But “outside one force-feeds outside,” is its mouth not higher than ten hand-breadths?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Does one not consider depth equal to height? If its mouth is not wide four [hand-breadths]. So far if it is blocked in. If it is far away? Rav and Samuel; one said one puts in a plank; the other said, one plants a stick. We did not know who said what. Since Samuel stated, higher than ten [hand-breadths]is rabbinically forbidden, he is the one who said that one puts in a plank.

HALAKHAH: Only it should be no larger than two bet se’ah, or the walls ten [hand-breadths] high, nor the opening wider than ten [cubits], nor what was standing was opposite what was standing and what was breached opposite the breached.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi [ ] said: He who permits makes the bolt an accessory to the lock; he who forbids makes the lock an accessory of the bolt.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not every rabbinic Sabbath prohibition was permitted in the Temple.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One ties strings in the Temple but not in the countryside.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s, as Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated, if a broken violin string is tied it does not give a sound, but he strings from above and makes a loop below. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, and musical instruments obstruct the sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Jehudah the important said, they only stated “bast” but bingion is prohibited because of excess clothing. They wanted to say excess of clothing is like deficiency in clothing. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Ḥanina’s, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, only it should not separate between him and a garment or between garment and garment. In Rebbi Ḥanina’s opinion, what is excess clothing? Two shirts, two turbans, two pants, two belts. If a Cohen was injured on his finger and wound a belt around it; is anything called “belt” inadmissible or only clothing?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a crawling animal was found in the Temple,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said to him, did you not prolong the impurity? He answered him, did you not increase impurity? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by him than a prohibition which will come before him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there, “how does one separate ḥallah in impurity on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer says, one should not declare its name until after it was baked. Ben Bathyra says, he should put it into cold water.” Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not like one who burns sancta on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer told him, it is burned automatically. Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not transgressing it should not be seen, and it should not be found? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by you than a prohibition which will come before you.

HALAKHAH: “At nightfall of the fourteenth,” etc. It is written: You shall guard the mazzot, because on this same day I took out your multitudes fromthe Land of Egypt. On the first, on the fourteenth of the month, in the evening, you shall eat mazzot, etc. Where do we hold? If for eating mazzah, is it not already written, seven days you shall eat mazzot? Or if to say that one starts on the Fourteenth, is it not written, until the twenty-first of the month? But if it is not needed as a reference to the eating of mazzah, take it as a reference to the elimination of leavened matter.

HALAKHAH: “One does not suspect,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, so the Mishnah should have been stated: From town to town and from courtyard to courtyard, from place to place and from room to room. If you suspect from town to town, you will suspect from courtyard to courtyard. If you suspect from courtyard to courtyard, you will suspect from place to place. If you suspect from place to place, you will suspect from room to room. Rebbi Yose said, even following the Mishnah it is correct. “One does not suspect that a mole pulled it from room to room or from place to place; if that were the case, also from courtyard to courtyard and from town to town without end.” For if you do not suspect from room to room, not so much more you suspect from place to place? If you do not suspect from place to place, not so much more from courtyard to courtyard? If you do not suspect from courtyard to courtyard, not so much more from town to town? All of Israel can check their leavened matter together.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah, corresponding to the three times that in the Torah is written, leavening shall not be seen as yours. But is it not written, you shall remove leavening from your houses? That is a positive commandment. But is it not written, for seven days leavening shall not be found in your houses? Rebbi Yose said, since they are mutually needed, they are as one. It should not be seen as yours, I would have said, if somebody deposited with him it should be permitted. The verse says, it shall not be found in your houses. If it shall not be found in your houses, if he gave him a separate place it should be forbidden. The verse says, it shall not be seen as yours. How is this? If he deposited with him it is forbidden; if he gave him a separate place it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, one eats all during the fifth [hour],” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only,. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only. How is that? Split the day, half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, he excludes leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They were qualified. And why does he treat them as disqualified? Not to slaughter the sacrifice for them. But do they not become sancta only by the slaughter? They should be redeemed and be eaten! Rebbi Ḥanania said, he has profane [bread] before him which he could not eat and you are saying, they should be redeemed and be eaten? Rebbi [Ḥanina] said, they were disqualified. Since they are in a hurry to bring their thanksgiving sacrifices because of the leavened bread with the sacrifice, it is impossible that not the blood of one of them be spilled and it becomes disqualified.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are word of the Torah. In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, original impurity induces first degree derivative. Derivative impurity induces second degree derivative. Second degree impurity which touched first degree one remains in its place, second degree, since third degree which touches first degree becomes second degree.

HALAKHAH: 7: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together].

HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state, “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: Therefore it is forbidden for eating? The Mishnah refers to a place where they are used not to eat Gentile bread; [but at a place where they used to eat Gentile bread] it is permitted even for eating.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened. But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply. If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave. [Even] if he separated leavened for unleavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, since if he gave from its kind it would not be heave, and even if he gives from this kind for another place it is not heave.

HALAKHAH: It is written: It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heavefor the Eternal. I could think that everything is subject to ḥallah; the verse says of the bread but not all bread. If of the bread and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley? From where the other kinds? The verse says the first of your dough, this includes. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael.

HALAKHAH: “With hazeret”, lettuce. “With ˋulšin”, τρώξιμον. “And with tamka”, γιγγίδιον “With harhabina”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, יסי חלי. “And with maror”. A bitter vegetable turning grey and containing sap. They objected, is not lettuce sweet? Is it not called “lettuce” only if it be sweet? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaya: (Itself it depends only on change) [Itself it is only called “change”]. (As) hazeret is sweet at the beginning and bitter at the end, so did the Egyptians behave towards our forefathers in Egypt. At the start, in the best part of the land settle your father and your brothers, and after that they embittered their lives with hard labor, with mortar and bricks.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: What is parboiled? If one adds hot water to flour. Dumpling, flour into hot water.” But here either water into bran or bran into water.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One adds flour neither to haroset nor to mustard; it one did add, he has to eat it immediately, on condition that he not tarry. Rebbi Meïr forbids since he tarries.”

HALAKHAH: “And the following are removed on Passover,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, all by the action of water.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If it could be scraped off together. So far moist; dry? Since if it were moist it could be scraped together, even if dry the same applies.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it became impure after rolling. But if it became impure before rolling, he should make them into pieces of single qab. If it was kneaded on the holiday. But if it was kneaded before the holiday, it is as it was stated: “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The first one waits for heating, the second for two heatings and one baking, and the third for three heatings and two bakings. If she made one of the first loaves last, for three heatings and three bakings.

HALAKHAH: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One is permitted to feed it [to his dog]. Bar Qappara stated: There is no fissure on top which does not have several fissures below.

HALAKHAH: It turns out that Rebbi Meïr parallels Rebbi Eliezer but is more stringent than Rebbi Eliezer. For Rebbi Eliezer says “that he not transgress not to be seen nor be found.” Rebbi Meïr says, that he not possibly transgress not to be seen nor be found. It turns out that the rabbis parallel Rebbi Joshua but are more stringent than Rebbi Joshua. For Rebbi Joshua says that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, and the rabbis say, even on weekdays one does not burn sancta.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, come and see how great is peace that it is bundled with two things about whom one is liable to extirpation.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is written, on that day will all shadow of horses be holy etc.; to the place where the horse runs without having a shadow.

HALAKHAH: “In a place where one was used to work,” etc. It is written, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening. Not only he, from where his agent? The verse says, and you shall cook and you shall eat. Why does the verse say, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening? It is not in order that he should be occupied by his work while his sacrifice is offered. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me [to bring] wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working.”

HALAKHAH: If they run out in Tiberias but did not run out in Sepphoris. He says to him, 1 brought it from Sepphoris; if you do not believe me, go and bring for yourself. Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Phineas: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose both said the same, as we have stated there: “One eats based on what is abandoned but not on what is guarded. Rebbi Yose says, also on what is guarded.” He says to him, I brought it from what is guarded; if you do not believe me, there is field x guarded before you, go and bring for yourself.

HALAKHAH: Is it permitted to raise them? Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil. They wanted to say, he who said it is permitted to sell [says] it is permitted to leave it alone. But he who says, it is forbidden to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell it [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. What is the difference between selling and leaving alone? There, because he intends to sell it to him it is like the Gentile’s animal. But here it is the Jew’s animal and he is suspected about it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: Even calf meat? He said to him, even calf meat. Even fowl meat? He said to him, even fowl meat. They wanted to say, even an egg, even colocasia. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanin said, but only what needs slaughter.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince: With a question mark, “should everybody make himself a scholar?” The Sages themselves did not decree idleness.

HALAKHAH: Therefore, the day is forbidden. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “A day of Pesaḥ it is for the Eternal.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Two students formulated it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, I found to say that they are three. One said, it is forbidden, another said, it is permitted, and another said it is a matter of usage.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, any work which one started before the Fourteenth he may finish on the Fourteenth,” but only what is needed on the holiday. “But he may not start one on the Fourteenth,” even something needed for the holiday. “But the Sages say, three trades are working on Passover Eve, the tailors,” since a non-professional may sew normally on the intermediate days of the holiday. “The barbers,” since nezirim and lepers shave on the holiday. “The laundrymen,” since usually people who ascend from impurity to purity launder on the holiday. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, also the cobblers,” since the pilgrims are used to repair their boots and sandals on the holiday. But the rabbis say, they were rich and made the pilgrimage on animals.

HALAKHAH: “One installs hens on brooding stalls on the Fourteenth,” therefore not during the holiday. One does not breed an animal on the holiday but may lead it to the corral. Rebbi Jehudah says, one breeds a female donkey in heat on the holiday, lest it cool down; all other animals one leads to the corral. One bleeds humans and animals on the holiday, and does not refrain from any medical procedure for humans or animals on the holiday.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “cutting”? Rebbi Meïr. Who is the Tanna of “binding into sheaves”? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that one may cut, and everybody agrees that one may not tie into sheaves. Where did they disagree? About grafting of date palms. Rebbi Meïr says, one grafts date entire day, and they acted following the will of the rabbis. Rebbi Judah says, they were not acting following the will of the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “The daily sacrifice is slaughtered,” etc. It is written: The following you shall do on the altar, etc. I would have said, both of them should be sacrificed in the morning, or both of them in the afternoon. The verse says, one sheep you shall do in the morning. I would have said, the morning one should be sacrificed at dawn and the evening one at dusk; the verse says, between the evenings. It is said here between the evenings and it is said there between the evenings. Since between the evenings which is said there means after six hours, also between the evenings which is said here must mean after six hours. What did you see that makes you say, between the evenings means after six hours? [Even though it is no proof there is a hint:] woe on us that the day has turned, that evening shadows are turned. Since evening which is said there means after six hours, also evening which is said here must mean after six hours. Then should it not be qualified after six hours? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, what is between the evenings? Split the evening into two, give it two and a half hours before, two and a half hours afterwards, and one hour for its work. It turns out that the daily sacrifice is brought at nine hours and a half.

HALAKHAH: From where that he must slaughter it for its purpose? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: And you shall say, a Pesaḥ slaughter it is; to imply that if he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ it is Pesaḥ, otherwise it is not Pesaḥ. From where the remainder of its actions? You shall make [a Pesaḥ], that all its actions shall be for the purpose of Pesaḥ. But then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, slaughter But then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, slaughter. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.

HALAKHAH: From where that he needs to slaughter for those who will eat it? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: For each man according to his eating you shall cut. Rebbi Josia said, it is a Syriac expresssion, as if a person say to his neighbor, slaughter for me this lamb.

HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa. Power was given to Moses’s voice and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of 40 days of travel. What did he say? From place X to place Y one group, from place Z to place U one group. You should not be astonished. If about dust, which does not usually move, it is said, it will bedust in the entire land of Egypt, voice which usually is moving, not so much more? Rebbi Levi said, just as power was given to Moses’s voice, so power was given to Pharao’s voice, [and his voice went through the entire land of Egypt, a distance of forty days of travel.] What did he say? Get up, leave from the midst of my people. In the past you were servants of Pharao, from now on you are servants of the Eternal. At that moment, they were saying, Hallelujah, give praise, servants of the Eternal, but not servants of Pharao.

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