halakhah

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “They went, ate, and drank. In the evening they returned and red the Great Hallel.” What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Pamakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to Almighty God. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; Truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. Rebbi Mana said, it is ours. The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonathan said, not every rabbinic Sabbath prohibition was permitted in the Temple. The priest would have sunk into the blood up to their knees. How did they do it? They made them benches.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Half-pipes and rods were stated before the permission of vessels.

HALAKHAH: It is written, he sprinkled from it, from its entirety. Rebbi Abuna said, only from a complete sacrifice. “It is written, they shall burn it, and he shall burn it, and he shall burn them. Why does the verse say they shall burn it, the qualified, not the disqualified. And he shall burn it, that he may not mix fat with fat. And he shall burn them, all of them together.” Here you are saying, and he shall burn it, that he may not mix fat with fat; and there you are saying, and he shall burn them, all of them together. Rebbi La said, here in the tureen, there on the top of the altar.

HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time, and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself.

HALAKHAH: What does Sabbath rest mean? Did we not state, “One who desecrates sancta, or abases the holidays, or breaks the Covenant of our father Abraham, or is insolent against the Torah, even if in his hands are learning and good deeds, has no part in the Future World.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, what is optional? If he wants he cooks, if he does not want he does not cook.

HALAKHAH: Thirteen years did Rebbi Aqiba enter at Rebbi Eliezer’s and he did not take notice of him. This is his first retort before Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is this not the people which you despised; go now and fight against it.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The festival offering of the Fourteenth could come from tithe. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This means that it is voluntary. If you would say that it is obligatory, can anything which is obligatory come from tithe?

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he realized that it was Pesaḥ but he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offerings. If he knew that it was a well-being offering but he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Mana said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action. Rebbi Yose said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action. Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, are they perhaps not counted as rams for the public? It was stated thus: Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, already are counted for the public as fulfillment of their obligation. The Mishnah applies if he thought it was Pesaḥ and he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ. If he knew that it was a well-being sacrifice but thought to say that it is permitted to change well-being sacrifice into Pesaḥ, Rebbi Mana said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action; Rebbi Yose said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action. It is reasonable following Rebbi Mana in the first case, following Rebbi Yose in the last.

Halakhah 7: They said, that argument of Rebbi Eliezer is no answer to Rebbi Joshua, since he could say to him, how can you answer me with an argument about something that is apt to change for something that is not apt to being changed? Neither is the argument of Rebbi Joshua an answer to Rebbi Eliezer, since he could say to him, the Pesaḥ of Reuben which he slaughtered in the name of Simeon is changed into something qualified; and you are saying, he is liable?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed, also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable.

HALAKHAH: “How does one roast the Pesaḥ” etc. Why of pomegranates? Rebbi Ḥiyyas bar Abba said, all wood oozes fluid, but of pomegranates does not ooze fluid. Where do we hold? If fresh, even pomegranate {[wood} oozes. If dry, all other wood does not ooze. But it is so: All other wood if it is dry outside still is moist inside. Pomegranate {wood} if dry outside is dry inside.

HALAKHAH: Fire roasted, not spit roasted, nor pot roasted, nor grill roasted, nor metal roasted, nor roasted in any other way.

HALAKHAH: He only said “basted”. Therefore, if he immersed it, it is forbidden. A person cooked a chicken using oil to be burned. He came and asked Rebbi Bisna, who told him, go and cook it in water for an extended period.

HALAKHAH: Are not all public sacrifices brought in impurity? He only comes to tell you, even though they are brought in impurity they are not eaten in impurity. Both for him who says that the bread is the main item, as also for him who says that the sheep are the main item, there should be only four. The Tanna takes note of them and stated them as five.

HALAKHAH: This does not follow Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan says, one fulfills one’s obligation by pouring without eating. What is the reason? All of Israel shall slaughter it between the evenings. “It”, even if there is only one Pesaḥ, all fulfill their obligation with one pouring. Ii is impossible that there be an olive-sized bit for everyone.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it became impure after it fell into the vessel. But if it became impure when still higher it is as if he received water.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: To publicize him, to make it known that he spoiled it. If he said, I am going to burn it before the citadel on my own wood, one does not listen to him; it is not necessary to note that if he says, I will burn it on my roof on my own wood that one does not listen to him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

HALAKHAH: A bone with no meat on it, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is forbidden to break it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break it. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow in a marrow-bone. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and profit from the bone? They wanted to say that one may not strip off from the disqualified. Rebbi Eleazar said, and even if you say that one may strip, he explains it following Rebbi Jacob, since Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: why did they say, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Because he who burns causes breaking. Samuel said, one may subscribe to the brain in the head but one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. One may subscribe to the brain in the head because one can take it out through the ear. But one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone since one could only extricate it by breaking. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone, but if he subscribed, he subscribed. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Because of the loss of sancta. In Samuel’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Samuel thinks like Rebbi Jacob, as Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad majus. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which left what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? If you are saying that piggul and leftovers do not disqualify heave, about that which left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by [touching] itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

HALAKHAH: “It is written, do not remove any meat from the house to the outside. I have not only outside the house, from where outside the group? The verse says, do not remove to the outside.” Rebbi Yudan said, from here that he makes himself liable if he (said I am) [removed] away from the group. Rebbi Mana said, the verse should have said, do not remove to the outside, and we would have said, if he makes himself liable outside the group, not so much more outside the house?

HALAKHAH: “A woman living in her husband’s house,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who are missing atonement others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, the woman after childbirth and one [healed from] skin disease, since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] skin disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter. Since he married her off, she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yosa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written: The woman shall say: Amen, amen. Rebbi Abun said, since it is written: You shall enjoy together with your house.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb”?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “I am going to slaughter” here, only “I am going to dedicate.” And why was it stated “I am going to slaughter”? To urge him on.

HALAKHAH: The members of a group of which one had beautiful hands were entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone Not only Pesaḥ, but even if they made a meal by contributions they are entitled to tell him, take your part and eat alone, if they did know him, since this was a stipulation from the start.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “For the menstruating woman one slaughters on her eighth day. For a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman one slaughters on his seventh day.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman is pure on his seventh day.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Abba bar bar Hana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : The Mishnah if he was jailed by Jews. But if he was jailed by gentiles, whose mouth speaks vanity and whose oath is false oath. If he was held outside of Jerusalem, but if he was held in Jerusalem even if they did not promise it is as if they had promised.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the season of Rebbi Jehudah: You may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one of your gates How does Rebbi Yose interpret Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? He explains it following Rebbi Eleazar ben Matthew, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says, I could think that a single person clinches for impurity, the verse says, you may not sacrifice the Pesaḥ in one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah concedes that if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable; if he transgressed and slaughtered one permits him to pour.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah is about one who newly became a deep mourner between slaughter and pouring. But if he became a deep mourner after atonement it already was accepted.

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse, I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said, the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and bar Qappara disagreed. One said, that he could come and eat; the other one said that he could come and pour. And even following him who said, that he could come and eat; on condition that he be within the two thousand cubits of the [Sabbath] domain before nightfall. Rebbi Zeˋira said, there they stated, if he happened to be closer than Modiˋin but his feet were bad, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained, this excludes one who did not refrain. If he happened to be farther than Modiˋin but had a horse at his disposal, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, and he was not on a trip, this excludes this one who was on a trip. If he happened to be closer than Modiˋin before noontime but left before noontime, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained from doing, he who refrains at the time of doing is liable, not at the time of doing is not liable.

HALAKHAH: It is written: they shall not leave anything until morning. If it relates to eating, this is the relevant positive commandment. No bone of it may be broken, that is the relevant prohibition. So when He says, according to all rules of the Pesaḥ they shall make it, I could think that I have to add the elimination of leavened matter and mazzah for seven days. The verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs. And following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael says, a principle followed by a detail, everything is in the principle, I could think that everything impedes it; the verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The meat, every pure person shall eat meat. But the person who would eat meat from the well-being sacrifice, for any which is permitted to pure persons one is liable for impurity, but for any which is not permitted to pure persons one is not liable for impurity. If he ate elevation offerings, if he ate parts, since they are not permitted to pure persons one is not liable for it.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it. Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it, is understandable, since it is written, a perfect lamb. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it, how does he confirm a perfect lamb? Even for offerings of the descendants of Noah it is impossible! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from all flesh, that they were complete in their limbs. There, some of them were for the altar, here nothing is for the altar. (Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, but here the altar has no part) But is was stated thus: Our forefathers in Egypt had three altars, the lintel and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, four: the door-step, and the lintel, and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, סַף is a vessel. Some Tannaim state, סַף is the door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, the cups, and the pruning knives, and the vessels for pouring. He who said, סַף is the door-step, when they used My door-step and their door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, is understandable; from the blood in the סַף. He who said, סַף is the door-step, how does he confirm that סַף may mean a vessel? He brings a cup as סַף, puts it down on the door-step, dunks and sprinkles.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan asked, is it the same for the substitute of a reparation offering, that the substitute of a reparation offering is sacrificed and the substitute of a reparation offering is not sacrificed? Rebbi Yose said, a Pesaḥ which one sacrificed [in the morning] is no Pesaḥ; an elevation offering which one sacrificed in the morning is an elevation offering.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah after propitiation, following {neither Rebbi nor Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Before Passover it shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value a Pesaḥ. After Passover it shall be brought as well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Simeon says, before Passover it shall be sold without a defect, after Passover it shall be brought as well-being sacrifice.” Did we not understand that “the body of any {animal} due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ is not offered as a well-being sacrifice”? Explain it if he dedicated coins.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One does not buy Sabbatical [produce] with tithe money.” Rebbi Yose said, that is a disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, that is the opinion of everybody. The eaters of heave are careful. Rebbi Ḥananiah objected before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state: “If they were mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of Cohanim they should eat.” And we have stated on that, they should be eaten following the more stringent rules. He said to him, eaters of the Pesaḥ in its time are as careful as the eaters of heave. You should know this since we have stated: “One roasts meat, onion, or egg only that they should be roasted“, but we have stated: “One lowers the Pesaḥ into the oven at nightfall.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Nathan’s, since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills one’s obligation by pouring without eating.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s as we have stated there, “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits.” Therefore not of the Fourteenth. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s? Rebbi Yose said, does it proclaim that it is Rebbi Jehudah’s? As we have stated there, “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits.”

HALAKHAH: “In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “On Sabbath Eve starting at the time of afternoon prayers one should not taste anything until nightfall in order to enter the Sabbath with an appetite, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he continues eating until he finishes.” “One interrupts for the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, one does not interrupt.” “It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta were lying on couches in Acco on Sabbath Eve, and in the meantime the Sabbath became holy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta, do you want to interrupt for the Sabbath? He answered him, the entire day you preferred my words over those of Rebbi Jehudah, and now you are preferring the words of Rebbi Jehudah over mine, also to rape the queen in my palace? He said to him, therefore we shall not interrupt, that practice in Israel should not be fixed following R. Jehudah. They did not leave there before they fixed practice following Rebbi Yose.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: These are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages, one spreads a cloth and makes qiddush. May one eat kinds of cookies? May one eat kinds of dried fruit? Rebbi Yudan the Prince bathed and became thirsty. He asked Rebbi Mana, since I am thirsty, may I drink? He told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A person may not taste anything before nightfall.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served; he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine was served. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited. Another explanation: The wine is frequent, Sanctification is less frequent.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “The Torah spoke about Four Children, a wise child, a wicked child, a stupid child, and a child who does not know how to ask. What does the wise child say? What are the testimonials, the ordinances, and the laws, that the Eternal, our God, commanded us? Also you shall tell him, with a strong hand did the Eternal lead us out of Egypt, the house of slaves. What does the wicked son say? What does this service mean to you? What is this exertion which you impose on us every (moment) [year]? Since he excluded himself from the community, also you shall tell him, because of this did the Eternal do for me when I left Egypt. For me, He did it, for that man He did not do it. If that man had been in Egypt, he would not have been worthy ever to be redeemed. What does the stupid child say? What is this? Tell him the rules of Passover, that one may not follow the Pesaḥἐπὶ κῶμον. What means ἐπὶ κῶμον? That one not leave one company and join another company. With the child who does not know how to ask, you have to begin and initiate with him.” Rebbi Yose said, that is what the Mishnah says, “if the son does not know how to ask, his father instructs him.”

HALAKHAH: Rav said, a priori he has to start with your forefathers always lived on the far side of the River, etc. But I took your father Abraham from the far side of the River, etc And I increased. Rebbi Aḥa said, the ketib is וארב. How may quarrels I made for him before I gave him Isaac. Another explanation, I prepared an ambush for him. If he would sin, to repay him, if he would acquire merit, to reward him.

HALAKHAH: it is written: When retribution is retributed for Israel, when the people volunteered, praise the Eternal; the heads of the people volunteered. When the Holy One, praise to Him, does wonders for Israel, they should sing a song. They objected: There is the redemption from Egypt! That is something else since it was the beginning of their redemption. They objected. There is redemption of Mardocai and Esther! That is something else since they were outside the Land; some want to say that Mardocai and Esther were freed of their enemies, they were not freed from [Gentile] government.

HALAKHAH: Why? Because they did not think of it or because midnight had passed? Think of it, if there was another group and midnight had not passed? Therefore the reason only is because they did not think of it.

HALAKHAH: “Seven days before the Day of Atonement,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan understood if from the following: As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command for future generations. To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves, the other also must be atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves

HALAKHAH: Does he not become impure because of his sprinklings? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were sprinkling on him after he had brought his offerings.

HALAKHAH: “Maybe you forgot, or maybe you never learned.” Did we not state, “the priest, greater than his brethren, that his greatness be from his brethren, on whose head the anointing oil was poured. Rebbi says, in beauty, in riches, in wisdom, and in looks.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in the first [Temple], here in the second.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: One allows him neither milk, nor eggs, nor cheese, nor fat meat, nor old wine, nor spiced wine, nor bean groats, nor lentils, Samuel said, nor citrus medica, nor anything which causes emission of semen. Nevertheless one was quoting for him the verse, if the Eternal does not build the house, etc. But was this not of the miracles which happened in the Temple? Rebbi Abun said, because of you shall not try. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in the first {Temple}, here in the second.

HALAKHAH: It was located on top the the Water Gate and close to his lodge.

HALAKHAH: It was stated, in Proverbs and Psalms, since their interest makes sleep disappear.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, “with a dry finger” orally. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, “with a dry finger”, with the hand. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan “orally, not with harp nor with lute.” He explains it, the melody indicated by the dry finger one says orally, not with harp nor with lute.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said, would it not be understandable if on the day of Atonement it were after the first watch and on holidays from midnight, that they should not become thirsty? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next say and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water.

HALAKHAH: “Originally, anybody who wanted to remove the ashes from the altar,” etc. Rebbi Mana asked, why did they not establish a lottery for the removal of ashes? Come and see, slaughter is valid by a non-Cohen, but you are saying that there is a lottery. Removal of ashes is forbidden to a non-Cohen, and you are saying, there is no lottery? Rebbi Mana turned around and said, slaughter is valid only during daytime, but the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night. If you are saying that there is a lottery, he will not get up early for the doubt. What did you see to say this? All the night, he shall remove. From here that the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes. It is unnecessary. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place, that its place shall be pure. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it, he shall burn incense. Since sprinkling is on its body, also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, nobody ever participated in the lottery and repeated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “newcomers for incense come and participate in the lottery.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, the same is true for the pan. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so, “the one winning the incense says to the one on his right side, you are with me with the pan,” You have to say that two Cohanim are blessed every time. Rav said, May the Eternal bless his might and may You desire the action of his hands. It happened that a man whose arm atrophied but he did not refrain from it, to uphold what had been said, may the Eternal bless his might and may You desire the action of his hands.

HALAKHAH: They shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; I could think, two hundred. Rebbi Aqiba said, anywhere you could understand many or you could understand few, if you took the many you took nothing, if you took few you took. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, two measures; one finite, the other infinite. Everybody measures with the finite measure, but nobody measures with the infinite measure. Rebbi Nehemiah said, does the verse come to open or to lock in? It does not come to lock in but to open. If you are saying days are ten, they could be 100 or 200 or 1’000 or 10’000. But if you say days are two, you did unlock. Rebbi Muna said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah. Days are two. I could think that days are many. If they are many, why is it said, many? Therefore the verse only spoke of few days. How much are they? It means two; many are three. I could think that many (days) means ten. It says days and it says many. Since the minimum of days are two, so for many, the minimum of many are three. I could think that two and three make five. But is it said, days [and many]? It only is said, many days. How is this? These many should be more than two. How many are they? It implies three.

HALAKHAH: “The overseer said to them,” etc. What means borqi? Bareqet. There, they are saying, בְּרוֹק בּוֹרְקָה, getting light, radiant.

HALAKHAH: Moonlight comes up as a beam; sunlight spreads over the entire East. So far if it was the end of the month; if it was the start?

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: No person did enter the courtyard or for service, [even if he was pure,] unless he immerses himself. Not only for service but also not for service.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Until he cut two or most of two. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “[they brought him the daily sacrifice;] he cut it.”

HALAKHAH: It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about wood in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which in the morning is written only once. Then even before its blood? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, preceded action for it. It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which only [one] in the morning is written. Where do we hold? If about limbs, are they not like wood? But we are holding, even for its blood. It is written about wood in the morning, in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning, and I do not know which of the two is preceding. Which one is enabling what? Wood enables the incense; the wood shall precede the incense. Come and see, wood precedes the blood and blood precedes incense, and you are saying so? Rebbi Hila said, no. Since I could not prove by a logical argument that wood enables the incense, you needed that baraita. They wanted to say, what enables the incense? Charcoal. Rebbi Eleazar said, smoke-creating herb.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing. Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified.

HALAKHAH: What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices? From the Northern wall of the altar to the Northern wall of the courtyard the entire width of the altar, i. e., 32 cubits, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, from before the House of Knives up to between the Hall and the altar, to the Eastern wall of the courtyard. Rebbi adds: the place where Cohanim can enter, eleven cubits, and the place where Israel can enter, eleven cubits, from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.

HALAKHAH: What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices? From the Northern wall of the altar; one repeats this from the preceding Halakhah up to “from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.”

HALAKHAH: What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices? From the Northern wall of the altar; one repeats this from the preceding Halakhah up to “from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.”

HALAKHAH: “The following are for shame: The family Garmu.” “The family Garmu were experts in preparing the shew-bread and its removal from the oven, but they did not want to teach. They sent and brought craftsmen from Alexandria who were experts in preparing the shew-bread but were not experts in its removal from the oven. The family Garmu were heating from within and removing from the outside, and it did not become moldy. But those were heating from the outside and removing from the inside, and it became moldy. When the Sages realized the situation, they said, everything which the Holy One, praise to Him, created, he created to His glory; all work of the Eternal is for Himself. They sent after them, but they refused to come until they doubled their wages. They used to take twelve mina, so they gave them twenty-four. Rebbi Jehudah says, they used to take 24, so they gave them 48. They asked them, why do you not want to teach? They answered them, there is a tradition among us from our forefathers that this Temple will be destroyed in the future. Others should not learn and prepare the same before their foreign worship. In the following matter one mentions them for praise, that in the hands of their children white bread was never found, so people should not say, from the preparation of shew-bread they are eating.”

HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them] and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them] saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they were engraved.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are three strips. The one for the he-goat for a tetradrachma, for the sufferer from skin disease for a sheqel, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; some express it in the formulation ten zin.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: on the fourth level in the courtyard.

HALAKHAH: As we have stated there : “If about a qab of it was scattered, he swept them into the water canal; but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine cooler.”

HALAKHAH: The compounding of the incense: balsamum, and cloves, galbanum and frankincense, each in the weight of 70 maneh. Myrrh and cassia, spicenard and saffron, each in the weight of sixteen maneh. Costus twelve, bark three, cinnamon nine. You find that there were 365 maneh according to the days of the year and three for this day. That is what we have stated: “but on this day he adds a fistful.” Carshina nine qab, (Qanrisin) [caper] wine three seah and three qab. If he has no (Qanrisin) [caper] wine he brings aged whitish wine. Sodom salt a quarter. Some smoke producing herb. Rebbi Nathan says, also some (Qafra) [Kifa] of the Jordan. If he added honey he invalidated it. If he left out one of its ingredients he is liable for death.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? And the fire on the altar shall be lit there, you shall not extinguish, that is the arrangement which keeps the fire. And the Cohen shall burn on it, that is the arrangement for disposal of limbs and fat. And arrange on it the elevation sacrifice, this is the main arrangement. And burn as incense on it the fats of the well-being sacrifices, this is the incense. Rebbi Yose does not have the arrangement for disposal of limbs. Rebbi Jehudah does not have the arrangement which keeps the fire. How does Rebbi Jehudah explain a permanent fire? The fire which I told you that it be permanent only shall be on the outer altar.

HALAKHAH: “They brought him the cup,” etc. But was it not already stated, “he took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar”? So is the Mishnah: The cup and the bowl. What is a כַּף? A tureen. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that it is a profane vessel. If you would say, a sanctified vessel, may something sanctified in a vessel be redeemed?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He enters South of the candelabrum, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose says, he enters North of the Table. Some Tannaim state, he was entering between the golden altar and the candelabrum. He walks between them until he reaches the North. He pushes with his elbows so that the gobelins should not be burned. When he arrives at the North he turns his face to the South. He retraces his steps lest he be seen as striding between the beams. How does he do it? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he puts the bowl on the ground, throws it in the air and catches it with the fire-pan. Samuel said, he pushes it with his hands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he empties the cup and it rises straight up, then it expands and descends.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Before the Ark was hidden he entered and exited by the light of the Ark. After the Ark was removed he was groping and entering, groping and leaving.

HALAKHAH: What means כְמַצְלִיף? Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Like one who whips.

HALAKHAH: Should he not start at the Southeast corner? Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn. Should he not start at the Northwest corner? Rebbi Eleazar said, he shall leave to the altar. Should he not start at the Southwest corner? Not to turn his back on the Holiness. Does he not end to turn his back on the Holiness? He was returning backwards. He shall stand in the South and start at the Northeast corner, as Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn.

HALAKHAH: He shall sprinkle on it, not on its ashes. On it, not on its coals. There are Tannaim who state, the North side. There are Tannaim who state, the South side. He who says, the North side, Rebbi Eliezer; he who says the South side, the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when has this been said? About service performed inside in white garments. But service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, what he did is done. And the Sages are saying, even for service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, he did not do anything.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them are explaining the same verse: of the blood of the atoning sacrifice once. The rabbis are saying, service which is performed one [time] in the year. Rebbi Jehudah is saying, a place in which he enters one [time] per year.

HALAKHAH: “The two he-goats of the Day of Atonement,” etc. He-goats, the minimum of he-goats are two. If so, why does it say two? That they be equal.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara stated, “they acted criminally, offended, sinned,” in order not to mention the shame of Israel.

HALAKHAH: He shall send him by a man, to qualify the non-Cohen. Timely. that he be ready; timely, that he be prepared. Timely, even on the Sabbath; timely, even in impurity. Can he be not ready but prepared? But that he should not send him by two people. If he sent him by two people, does he make clothing impure? Let us hear from the following: And the one who sends; not who was sending the one who sends. This implies that if he sent him by two people, it does not make clothing impure.

HALAKHAH: There are Tannaim who state, he compressed his body. There are Tannaim who state, a genuine ramp.

HALAKHAH: [Originally they were tying it to their windows; some of them were turning white and some turning red; these were ashamed in front of the others. They changed and tied it to the door of the Sanctuary. Some years it was turning white, in others turning red. They changed and tied it to the rock.

HALAKHAH: [He comes to his bull, etc.] We have stated: “He comes to the bull and the he-goat to be burned.” There are Tannaim who state, the High Priest comes to read. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, the verse supports our Mishnah: He who sends the he-goat to Azazel shall wash his garments. What is written next? And the purification bull and the purification he-goat. Rebbi Mana said, it may be interpreted even following the Tanna of the baraita. If a person moves from Tiberias to Sepphoris, while he still is in Tiberias do people say, he dwells in Sepphoris.

HALAKHAH: What are διάδοχοι? Ones opposite one another.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest comes,” etc. From where the reading of the Chapter? Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: And he executed, what does the verse say? As the Eternal had commanded Moses, from here the reading of the Chapter.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages, all of them were brought with the daily morning offering. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Joseph: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say, frequent and holy, holy has precedence, so Rebbi Eliezer says, frequent and holy, holy has precedence. How is this? The service of the Day is holier and the day’s musaf sacrifices are more frequent; the service of the Day has precedence over the day’s musaf sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: Why does the High Priest serve in eight vestments? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis said, corresponding to circumcision, which takes place on the eighth day. Because of My covenant was with him. Why does he not serve in the golden vestments? Because of haughtiness. Rebbi Simon said, because of do not inflate yourself in front of the king. Rebbi Levi said, because an accuser does not become a defense attorney. Yesterday it was written about them, they made golden gods for themselves, and today he would officiate in golden vestments?

HALAKHAH: “On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, etc., are forbidden.” They are punishable by extirpation and you are saying so? Rebbi Hila said, it was needed for less than the minimal quantities.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose said, this implies that (he) [one] has to squeeze its empty space since otherwise one should have stated, “it, its pit, and its empty space.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated, a date from Nimrin.

HALAKHAH: Why? Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. From where that drinking is subsumed under eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? But we hold, as it is. And the Torah called it eating. And was it not stated: If one liquefied fat and drank it, or congealed blood and ate it, [if there is the volume of an olive] he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and understood if from the following:: You shall spend the money for anything you desire. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste of the wine? [But we hold as it is and the Torah called it “eating.”] The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about orzaraya and gomnany, since anything that is ancillary to food is like food.

Some want to understand it from this: You may not eat in your gates etc. Your cider’, that is the wine. And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If you could say that it is clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure”, one reads this in Halakhah One.

HALAKHAH: At first one dips it in sauce. If she feels well again it is good. Otherwise one gives her of the body of forbidden food. Two pregnant women came before Rebbi Tarphon. He sent two students to them and told them, go and tell them, it is the Great Fast-day. They said it to the first one and she quieted down. They said about him, from my mother’swomb You are my God. They said it to the second, who did not quiet down. They said about him, The wicked are perverts from the womb; they err from the belly, the speakers of lies!

HALAKHAH: From where that one may feed him fig cake and raisins of heave? From this: They gave him a slice of fig cake and two raisins. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the twenty-four esronot which David ate, he ate in hunger. This happened to Rebbi Joḥanan and he ate everything which happened to be before him. They quoted about him, wisdom revives its possessor. It was stated: “One feeds him the least forbidden. Carcass meat or heave, one feeds him heave. Ṭevel and sabbatical produce, one feeds him Šabbatical produce.” Ḥallah and ˋorlah is problematic. Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Rebbi Ba: Heave is a deadly sin, carcass meat a prohibition, and you are saying so? Following him who said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily..