halakhah

HALAKHAH: There we stated: Intentional [impurity] of the Sanctuary and its sancta is atoned by the he-goat whose blood is brought inside and the Day of Atonement. The remainder of the transgressions mentioned in the Torah, minor or severe ones, intentional and unintentional, [known and unknown, positive commandments and prohibitions, extirpations and capital crimes, the scapegoat atones.]

HALAKHAH: The elevation offering atones for thoughts. What is the reason? What rises in your spirits will not be. Rebbi Levi said, What rises in your spirits will not be. And so Job says, he got up early in the morning and brought elevation offerings in the number of all of them, etc. [This implies that the elevation offering atones for thoughts.]

HALAKHAH: “On the first of Adar one proclaims,” etc. Why on the first of Adar? So that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time and it should be disbursed from the new contributions to the treasury on time on the First of Nisan. And Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the heave of the treasury] as at its start, as it is written, it was in the First month of the Second year, on the first of the month, that the Sanctuary was erected. It was stated hereto, on the day the Sanctuary was erected, on the same day the contribution was collected. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Yoshia in the name of Cahana. It is said here months, and it is said there, months. Since months mentioned there are only counted from Nisan, so also months mentioned here are only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Tabi left out the start and only quoted the end; this is not done since it was stated: This is the elevation sacrifice for a month at its New Moon. I could think that one should collect every month, the verse says at its New Moon for the months; at one New Moon one collects for all months of the year. I could think on any month of his choosing, it is said here months, and it is said there, months. Since months mentioned there are only counted from Nisan, so also months mentioned here are only counted from Nisan.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said.” It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, originally they were uprooting and throwing down before them; they were twice happy, first that they weeded their fields and second that they could use (the robbery) [the kilaim ]. When the number of transgressors rose, they were throwing it on the roadways, and still they were happy that they weeded their fields. They instituted that they were declaring the entire field as ownerless.

HALAKHAH: “On the Fifteenth,” etc. But one requests? This is if he grew two pubic hairs, but it does not apply if he did not grow two pubic hairs. In matters of pledges, one never takes pledges if he did not grow two pubic hairs.

HALAKHAH: “Even though they said,” etc. Therefore one does not request? Here you are saying, one requests, but there you are saying, one does not request. There if he grew two pubic hairs, and here if he did not grow two pubic hairs.

HALAKHAH: “One consolidates sheqalim to darics,” etc. Should one exchange them for a pearl? Perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. As we have stated there, “All can be redeemed by money or monies-worth except for sheqalim” [and one does not redeem by implements;] and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, perhaps the implements would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage. Also here, perhaps the pearl would lose in value and the Temple treasury would suffer damage.

HALAKHAH: “He who pays the sheqel,” etc. We have stated, “if the sums were disbursed.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “if the animal was sacrificed.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if the animal was sacrificed”? Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, he receives his money immediately, the priests are quick. It is difficult. If somebody stole another’s elevation offering and slaughtered it without special mention, is it not without special mention atoning for the original owner? Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim throwing it into the chest. But should one not worry that maybe it will become part of the remainder; is there me`ilah for the remainder? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, there is me`ilah for the remainder. Still if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim and disbursed it in his name.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: “The excess of sheqalim is profane,” etc. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The excess of sheqalim is profane The excess of a tenth of an ephah, the excess of nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, the nests of female sufferers from flux, the nests of women after childbirth, or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, the excesses are gift.”. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains it as excess from the tenth of an ephah of the purification offering of any one in Israel.

HALAKHAH: If they collected for him presuming that he had nothing and it turned out that he had some. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, the excess of monies collected for a particular dead is for his heirs. Rebbi Idi from Ḥutra said to him, think of it, did they intend only for [him? He said to him], I did [not] say this; what is your source?

HALAKHAH: “Three times a year,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu said, everywhere we have stated pars, it is one half. [Half of the thirty days before a holiday when one explains its rules.]

HALAKHAH: [Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of three baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit. It is stated:] One distributes from the lodge into three boxes of three seah each, which is nine seah, which is seah; it is written on them ג ,ב ,א. Why is ,ג ב ,א written on them? To say that one does not take from the first before one has taken from the second, and not from the second before one has taken from the third.

HALAKHAH: “A member of the household of Rabban Gamliel was,” etc. If there were two heaps and he gave heave from one for the other, would that not remove the liability from the other? It gave them satisfaction that the sacrifice should be brought first from their money.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman 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 Onias from Berat-Hauran in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; but some express it in the formulation ten (zin) [zuz].

HALAKHAH: Would not Temple property be redeemed by Temple property? What does he do? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, he brings coins and redeems them for the building; brings incense and redeems it for them, and gives it to the artisans as their wages. What should be done with those coins? Rebbi says, I am saying that they should be given to the family Garmu and the family Eutinos who were experts in compounding the incense and in making the shew-bread. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav <isaac< said, only if they were due to them beforehand. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, what if they were not due beforehand? There came Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One uses them to adorn the altar. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba seems inverted. Here it is questionable for him; there it is obvious for him. He told him, where it is questionable for him, for Service vessels; where it is obvious for him, to adorn the altar.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for any public sacrifices.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. What is Ben Azzai’s reason? For Temple property cannot be redeemed by work, only by coins.

HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: he receives his money immediately, for the priests are quick.

HALAKHAH: “These are the appointees who were in the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon and the rabbis. One said, he comes to enumerate the qualified ones of every generation. But the other said, he who was in a generation enumerated what was in his generation. He who said, he comes to enumerate the qualified ones of every generation, about all of them he says, the remembrance of the just is for blessing. He who said, he who was in a generation enumerated what was in his generation, about all of them he says, but the name of evildoers shall rot. About whom was said, the remembrance of the just is for blessing? About Ben Qaṭin and his kind.

HALAKHAH: “One does not appoint less than three treasurers and seven overseers.” It was stated: And two καθολικοί. That is what is written, and Yeḥiel, and Uzziahu, and Maḥat, treasurers; and Asael, and Yerimot, and Yozavad, and Eliel, and Samkhiahu, and Maḥat, and Conaiahu, overseers, officers supervised by Konaniahu and his brother Simei, katholikoi; appointed by King Yeḥizkiahu and Azariahu the governor of God’s House, King and High Priest.

HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor] sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb. What are the libations for a mother sheep? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written, so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman were providers and gave a denar to Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rabbi Oshaia, but he gave it away to others. All were saying evil things about Rebbi Zachariah, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi; they said that he was taking while he did not need it. When he died, they checked and found that he was splitting it up for others.

HALAKHAH: “Thirteen horns,” etc. It was stated: these horns were curved; narrow on top and wide on the bottom because of the tricksters.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Abba Yose ben Ḥanin’s, since Abba Yose ben Ḥanin said, corresponding to the thirteen gates. But according to the Rabbis there were seven gates. In the Rabbis’ opinion, where were the thirteen prostrations? As we have stated there, “There were thirteen breaches, were the Greek kings breached it; they came back and closed them and decided correspondingly thirteen prostrations.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated, “on the silver one”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac; Rebbi Ḥananiah brought it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There was none of silver because it heats. But did we not state, this is one of the wonders which happened in the Temple, that just as they were putting it down hot, so they were removing it hot, [as it is written], to put hot bread as on the day it was removed. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, one does not mention wonders. They asked before Rebbi Ila: If they did not have bread, may they leave it for the coming week? He said to them, it is written: you shall put on the table the shew-bread before Me permanently. The shew-bread, even disqualified.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mix-up.” Maybe one of them would die and it turn out that moneys of dying purification sacrifices were mixed up in them. [But did we not state] (It was stated): A woman who said, I have to bring a nest, brings the money for the nest and puts it in the horn, and eats from sancta without worry. And the Cohen does not worry that maybe moneys of dying purification sacrifices are mixed up in them. [For what we are saying is about purification sacrifices whose owner certainly died. We could say, let us choose two zuz and throw them into the River, then the remainder should be permitted, but do we not say in general that Rebbi Jehudah does not accept retroactive choices?]

HALAKHAH: “Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts,” etc. It would only be necessary between sheqalim and nests! They were arranged like a snail. Would it not be necessary that it be given to sheqalim? Some want to say, maybe they would remain with the excess of the lodge. Some want to say, in the middle it is as if he died. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to the gift account. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to the gift account.

HALAKHAH: Would it not be necessarily holy on the Temple Mount? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is a presumption that no Cohen will remove money from the lodge unless it is redeemed by an animal.

HALAKHAH: The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said (more)<to his son>` this was taught for their monetary value. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices? But they followed the majority of cases: If most are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings, so it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse.

HALAKHAH: “All spittle,” etc. Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification was there. Rebbi Ḥanina said, they were stabbing wild donkeys in Jerusalem and the feet of the pilgrims were immersed in blood up to their knee joints. [They came before the Sages who did not tell them anything.] Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A Gentile fortification was there.

HALAKHAH: If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, three, “entwined”, six. There are four kinds, this makes 24. It was stated 32. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, four, “entwined”, eight. There are four kinds, this makes 32. It was stated 48. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “plaited” three, “twisted”, six, “entwined”, twelve. There are four kinds, this makes 48.

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 words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

HALAKHAH: “What is ‘the rim of the altar’? A cubit between two horns, on the place reserved for the feet of the Cohanim walking.”

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

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it.” It was stated: One has to renew something in it. The colleagues say, one hand-breadth; Rebbi Yose says, anything. He who says anything, but along the entire length. Is it the same with an old mazzah? Is an old mazzah a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he was not careful about it. A sukkah of shepherds, a sukkah of potters is qualified. A sukkah of Samaritans, if it is made according to the rules is qualified, not according to the rules is disqualified.

HALAKHAH: Two thatched roofs one on top of the other, the upper one has more sunshine than shade, the lower one has not more sunshine than shade. Together, their shade is more than their sunshine. How much may be between them so that they combine? Two Amoraim, one said, ten, the other one said, four. The one who said ten objected to the one who said four: because of a tent? We find a tent which is one hand-breadth.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: if he hung there quilts it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that you are saying on the sides, but on top it is disqualified.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Only if he drew them (on the spot) [for this purpose]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: He needs to move it. Rebbi Yose said, both of them are for leniency. If he drew them (on the spot) [for this purpose] even if he did not move it; if he moved it even if he did not draw them (on the spot) [for this purpose].

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because it looks like storage.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is [four] wide. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements. But was not Rebbi Jeremiah {saying} in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is four wide? Therefore if they have been polished for implements everybody agrees that it is permitted. Since Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, if he used steps of ladders for roofing it is disqualified, and they are saying that he ruled according to Rebbi Meïr, this implies that both cases are the same. Since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements, therefore if it is four {hand-breadths} wide everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Now Rebbi Yasa ruled at the big assembly that one may use a cross-beam for the thatched roof, and they said that he ruled following Rebbi Jehudah, this implies that both cases are the same.

HALAKHAH: But if he moved he does not have to lift one in the middle.

HALAKHAH: It was stated, more than their diameter. The colleagues say, because no hand-breadth enters into a hand-breadth. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, is not for glass vessels one hand-breadth equal to another hand-breadth? Rebbi Yose said, there it enters and leaves, here it enters and does not leave.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose said it only for Tabernacles, but in the matter of the Sabbath even Rebbi Yose agrees. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it is even for the Sabbath, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, a ruler came to Sepphoris and they suspended quilts; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose permitted carrying under them following his father’s argument. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina comes like Rebbi Ḥanania and both disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Ḥanania bar Aqabia all three said the same. Rebbi Jehudah of the open bridges, Rebbi Yose that of tabernacles, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia as it was stated Rebbi Ḥanania permitted three things, he permitted a balcony, and seaweed, and bringing bathtowels.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths; disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated both. “Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths,” as we have stated: “If the roofing is three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” “Disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits,” as we have stated: “If a house partially collapsed and he thatched over it, it is disqualified if from the walls to the thatching it is four cubits.” Therefore less is qualified. May one sleep under that? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv answered: pourable mud completes a miqweh but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the sukkah but one may not sleep under it. Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Cahana, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, why do we not say, because disqualified roofing only disqualifies in four cubits?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that it is qualified if it is built on four stones or otherwise elevated from the ground at least one hand-breadth. It was stated: If one builds his sukkah like the house of the Lebanon Forest it is qualified. For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Eliezer.

HALAKHAH: “One who sleeps under the bed,” etc. There, we have stated: “But one may spread it over single posts of the bed.” And here he says so? Rebbi Eliezer said, there he and his toga are under the sukkah, but here he and his (bed) [toga] are under the (sukkah) [bed]. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he said, action has precedence over study, and here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah thinks that one sleeping under the bed is like the one sleeping under the sukkah. So much more is Rebbi Jehudah’s argument inverted, as we have stated there, “[Rebbi Jehudah says,] if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.” Therefore if there are dwellers in the upper one the lower is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, there is another space, but here there is no other space.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Immi said, because from the middle of the couch it is less than ten hand-breadths. Rebbi Abba said, because one does not base it on what is impure. But was it not stated, it happened that the people of Jerusalem were lowering their couches through their windows and putting thatching over them? If you are saying, because one does not base it on what is impure, here it is put on what is impure. Therefore the reason only is because from the middle of the couch it is less than ten hand-breadths.

HALAKHAH: Rav and Samuel, one said “thinned out”, and one said “wilted”. He who said “thinned out”, if i6t had much shade; but he who said “wilted,” if it does not have much shade.

HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If put on the ground, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If it sails, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba. But we must hold when it is in port.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna went to Eintab for the indication. While coming he became thirsty but did not accept tasting anything before he went to the sukkah of Rebbi Joḥanan the scribe of Gufta.

HALAKHAH: We were thinking to say that he did not say three benedictions but one benediction he did say. It was found stated, neither one benediction nor three benedictions. It was stated: “On everything that needs three benedictions at the end one says ‘Who produces bread from the earth’ at the start, but on everything that does not need three benedictions at the end one does not say ‘Who produces bread from the earth’ at the start.” They objected: But if it is less than the size of an olive, one does not say three benedictions at the end. Does this mean that one should not say “Who produces bread from the earth” at the start? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is needed for other kinds.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, you shall sit, and it says there, at the door of the Tent of Meeting they shall sit day and night. Since for the sitting mentioned there He made nights like days, so also for the sitting mentioned here we shall make nights like days. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth for Passover and it is said fifteenth for Tabernacles. Since for fifteenth said for Passover the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional, so also for fifteenth said for Tabernacles the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional. The colleagues asked, since there only that one comes to eat mazzah with an appetite, so also here only they come to eat in the sukkah with appetite? Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Since there only one has to eat mazzah in the volume of an olive, so also here only one has to eat grain [in the sukkah] in the volume of an olive? Rebbi Hoshaia said, the sukkah is obligatory all seven days. Rebbi Berekhiah said, they disagree. Rebbi Abuna said, they do not disagree. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he put his mind to it; what Rebbi Hoshaia said, if he did not put his mind to it.

HALAKHAH: Not only his table, but even a place for his table. How much is a place for his table? A hand-breadth.

HALAKHAH: What is a minor? In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, any who needs his mother to cleanse him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any who awakes from his sleep and cries “Mamma”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Any minor who does not need his mother is obligated for the sukkah but goes out with his mother’s eruv.

HALAKHAH: It is written, in sukkot you shall sit. But sitting means dwelling, as you are saying, you shall inherit it and sit in it; that he eats in the sukkah, and rests in the sukkah, and brings his utensils to the sukkah.

HALAKHAH: “A robbed or dried up lulav is disqualified,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Rebbi Levi said, to what is one compared who takes a robbed lulav? To one who honored the ruler with a basket and it turned out that it belonged to the latter. One says, woe to this one whose defender became his prosecutor.

HALAKHAH: It is written, and a branch from the rope tree, a tree whose branches cover it and it rises like plaiting. Which one is this? The myrtle. If you would say the olive tree, it rises like plaiting but its branches do not cover it. If you would say the vine, its branches cover it but it does not rise like plaiting. Therefore, which one is this? The myrtle.

HALAKHAH: “It is written, and brook-willows. I admit not only from a brook, from where also from an unirrigated place or from mountains? The verse says, and willows. Abba Shaul says, brook-willows, two. A willow twig for the lulav and a willow twig for the Temple.” Then why was it written and brook-willows? To exclude the osier. “What is an osier? If its is like a sickle. It was stated: Like a sickle it is disqualified, like a plane it is (qualified) [disqualified]. What is a disqualified willow twig? The leaf is round and the stem white. What is a qualified willow twig? The leaf is long and the stem red.”

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael explained, a fruit of the splendor tree, one. Date-palm roped, one. A branch of the rope tree, three. And brook-willows, two. And two lifted ones; one which is not truncated. Rebbi Tarphon says, even if all three are truncated.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: Since Rebbi Ismael adds for the myrtle, should he not add for the other kinds? He answered, you are thinking that Rebbi Ismael thinks that truncated is splendor, and we have stated, “Rebbi Tarphon says, even if all three are truncates.” Nobody says “even” if he does not accept the preceding statement. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Jose: What does Rebbi Tarphon add to the words of Rebbi Ismael? He answered him, Rebbi Ismael does not think that truncated is splendor, but Rebbi Tarphon thinks that truncated is splendor. When Rebbi Yasa came up here he saw them being selective about myrtle branches. He said, why are the Westerners selective about myrtle branches? He had not heard thar Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: And they made known and proclaimed in all cities etc. Myrtle is not the same as rope tree, but myrtle is for the sukkah, and rope tree for the lulav. Rebbi Ze`ira blew it.

HALAKHAH: It is written, a fruit of the splendor tree, a tree whose fruit is splendor and its wood is splendor. Which one is that? This is the etrog. If you would say, the pomegranate, its (wood) [fruit] is splendor but its (fruit) [wood] is not splendor. If you would say, the carob, its wood is splendor but its fruit is not splendor. Which one is it? The etrog. Hadar; Rebbi Levi said, for it stays on its tree from one year to the next. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, Aquila translated הדָר by ‘ύδωρ ; a tree which grows on the water. “Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: You shall take for yourselves . . a fruit of the splendor tree, a tree whose fruit is splendor and its wood is splendor; the smell of its fruit is the smell of its wood, the smell of its wood is the smell of its fruit; its fruit looks like its wood, its wood looks like its fruit. Which one is it? The etrog.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: All disqualifications only disqualify on the first day of the holiday. There, they are saying, most of it on one side; its protuberance is disqualifying like most of it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

HALAKHAH: Therefore not at thank? To exclude also at please, Eternal, please give success.

HALAKHAH: It is stated: “In truth, they said a woman may say Grace for her husband, a slave for his master, and a minor for his father. One understands a woman for her husband, a slave for his master. A minor for his father? Did not Rebbi Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nahora: All they said about a minor is for the latter's education? Explain it that he recites after him, as we stated there: “A person to whom a slave, or a woman, or a minor, read for him, repeats after them what they say, and it should be a curse for him.” [Also they said,] there should be a curse on the man of twenty years who needs the child of ten.

HALAKHAH: Rav and Samuel. One said hallelu yah, and the other one said hallēluja. For him who said hallelu yah it is split but cannot be erased. For him who said hallelujah it may be erased but cannot be split. We do not know who said what. Since Rav said, I heard from my uncle, if somebody would give me a book of Psalms written by Rebbi Meïr I could erase all hallelujah in it since he did not intend to sanctify them. This implies that he said hallelujah. The words of the rabbis disagree, as Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the book of Psalms was said with ten expressions of praise, with “hail”, with “excellence”, with melody, with song, with chant, with instruction, with shout, with thanksgiving, with prayer, with blessing. The most beatific of all of them is hallelujah since both the Name and praise are contained in it.

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: If he knows how to move he is obligated for lulav. If he knows how to dress, he is obligated for ṣiṣit. If he knows how to talk, his father teaches him the language of the Torah. If he knows how to keep his hands clean, one eats heave on his hands. If he knows how to keep his body clean, one eats food in purity on his body. But he does not go before the Ark, nor lift his hands, nor stands on the podium, before he grows a beard. Rebbi says, all of them at the age of twenty years, as it is said: They appointed the Levites, twenty years or older, to direct the work of the Eternal’s House.

HALAKHAH: “Lulav and willow six and seven,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said, the willow is a word of the Torah: and brook willows, two. One willow for the lulav, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: willow and pouring water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institution of the prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai, as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty word, if it is empty it is from you. Why? Because you do not exert yourselves. Because it is your life; when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourselves. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on the fast day, and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also the moving.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, does the Mishnah contradict Rebbi Dosa? For “Rebbi Dosa said, in the morning a person has to say, everything which the poor will collect today between the sheaves is ownerless property. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, because we are not responsible for cheaters.” There you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, but here you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is abandonment. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he declares ownerless by his own will, here he declares ownerless against his own will. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, this is correct. You have to know that this is so since already his replacement is in his hand.

HALAKHAH: What is Moṣa? Memsia. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, its name was Colonia.

HALAKHAH: He said only minors, therefore not adults. Did not Rebbi Avinna say in the name of Rav, if an etrog became disqualified on the first day of the holiday one is permitted to eat it? Rebbi Yose said, there while he cannot use it to fulfill his obligation, others might use it to fulfill their obligation. But here neither he nor others can use it to fulfill their obligation.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: On eighteen days and one night one recites the Hallel every year. The eight days of Tabernacles, the eight days of Ḥanukkah, the holiday of Pentecost, and the first day of the holiday of Pesaḥ and its night.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated, to make a procession on the occasion. Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Menaḥem from Yodfat: It is Rebbi Aqiba’s Yose ben Ḥanina, since Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah.

HALAKHAH: Why non-sanctified? Even if it is sanctified! Did not Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena say in the name of Rebbi Yasa, you shall sanctify the altar; then the altar will be most holy. Since the altar only sanctifies with intention, so vessels should only sanctify with intention. Ḥizqiah said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for the sanctification of hands and feet become disqualified by staying overnight. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for Tabernacles become disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of the evil impression; but we do not know whether following Ḥizqiah or according to everybody’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The water for a deviant wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Abuna: anything of whose kind nothing possibly is for the altar cannot become disqualified by staying overnight.

HALAKHAH: “The fife five and six,” etc. Therefore the one of sacrifices supersedes. The Mishnah is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: The fife accompanying the sacrifices supersedes the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say, it supersedes neither the Sabbath nor the holiday. There we have stated: “On twelve days in the year the fife beats the time before the altar, at the sacrifice of the First Pesaḥ, the sacrifice of the Second Pesaḥ, on the first day of Passover, on the day of Pentecost, and on the eight days of Tabernacles.” Are there eight days without a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it anonymously, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s. In the opinion of those rabbis why does it not supersede? Because it is not clear. But is it not written, and the people blew fifes? That is written for Solomon’s festivity. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: And heartfelt joy like one marching with a fife. Any time one uses a fife one recites the Hallel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Why does one recite Hallel all seven days of Tabernacles? Corresponding to the lulav which is renewed all seven days. And why a fife for all these things? We have stated, for one is at stated times and the other is at stated times; this is beloved and that is beloved. They attached the beloved to the beloved. “On Pentecost one says to him, here you have maṣsah, here you have leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, here you have leavened, [here you have maṣsah.] He who said, here you have maṣsah, because it is beloved; he who said, here you have leavened, because it is frequent.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥanania said, all during the water-drawing festivity they did not at all taste the taste of sleep. At the start they went to sacrifice the daily morning sacrifice; from there they went to sacrifice the musaf sacrifices; from there they went [to sacrifice vows and voluntary offerings; from there they went] to eat and drink. From there they went to study Torah; and from there they went to sacrifice the daily evening sacrifice; and from there they went to the water-drawing festivity.” But was it not stated, “an oath that I shall not sleep for three days,” one whips him and he sleeps immediately? They were dozing.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: From the worn-out trousers of the High Priest they lit the inner lights, and from the worn-out trousers of common priests they lit the outer lights. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is written, to elevate the permanent light. They estimated to say that nothing produces a flare but flax.

HALAKHAH: “The pious ones and people of good deeds.” Some of them were saying, blessed be my youth which did not shame my old age; these are the people of good deeds. But others were saying, blessed be my old age which atoned for my youth. Both of these were saying, blessed be who never sinned; and he who sinned may be forgiven. Hillel the Elder, if he saw them wantonly transgressing said to them, even though I am here, who is here? Does He need acclamations? Is it not written, thousands upon thousands serve Him, and myriads of myriads stand before Him? If he saw them acting correctly he was saying, if I am not here who is here? Even though there are many acclaims before Him, the acclaim of Israel is beloved more than anything else. What is the reason? And the pleasantness of the songs of Israel; enthroned on the praises of Israel.

HALAKHAH: Rav explained for the House of Rebbi Shila, “when gever called” as “when the herald proclaimed.” They said to him, “when the rooster called.” He said to them, did we not state “Ben Gever”? Could you say, “the son of the rooster”?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: No less than seven and no more than sixteen. This Tanna considers blowing straight, modulated, and straight as one unit; the other Tanna considers each single one of them as a unit. You find to say, three for each tribe; Rebbi Jehudah says, three for each standard. But it was stated, and nine at the tenth step. That is another one. He who has “three on top of the altar” does not have “at the tenth step;” he who has “at the tenth step” does not have “three on top of the altar”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that they only blew the trumpet at the water libation. If you are saying, for the drawings, one should state, three for drawing water today, and three for drawing water for tomorrow. Are these it? Are there not others, nine for musaf on the Sabbath, nine for the musaf on a New Moon, and nine for the musaf of the New Year’s day holiday? But it must follow him who said, they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Even following him who said they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices, they were adding modulated sounds, they were not adding straight tones.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: All watches in the Temple doubled and tripled with bulls, except for the two last ones who doubled but did not triple. Rebbi Eleazar asked, would one start with them on the next holiday? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” It only is a problem following what was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: On the eighth day there was no lottery. In Rebbi Nathan’s opinion, would one start with them on the next holiday?

HALAKHAH: It is written, equal portions they shall eat. I could think also on the remaining days of the year it should be so, the verse says, except what was sold by the fathers, except what fathers sold for the sons; you on your week and I on my week.

HALAKHAH: “There are four New Year’s Days,” etc. It is written, this month shall be for you the head of the months. For you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for years nor for Sabbatical periods nor for Jubilees nor for planting nor for vegetables. And I could say, for you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for kings nor for holidays. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Or is it only the second in the month? Any place where the second day in the month is intended it is explicit. Or is it only the second in the week? We do not find this count in the Torah. But is it not written, it was evening and it was morning, the second day? One makes no inferences from the Creation of the World. Which one is the second of the months and which one is the second of the years? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana. One said, he started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. But the other one, even if you switch it does not change anything. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: This month is for you, an exclusion. The first it be for you, [an exclusion.] An exclusion after an exclusion is to include for kings and holidays. Could one include for years, or for Sabbatical periods, or for Jubilees, or for planting, or for vegetables? Following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: He started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. And when he says, in the fourth year of his reign, it bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Samuel stated and disagreed: In the third month of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. From here that one counts months from the exodus from Egypt. Not only months, from where years? The Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year. Not only at that time, from where later? In the fortieth year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Not only temporarily, from where for later generations? It was in the 480th year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, etc. After the Temple had been built they started to count from its building: It was at the end of twenty years after Salomon built the two houses. They did not merit to count from its building, they started counting from its destruction: In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, on New Year’s Day, on the tenth of the month, etc. They did not merit to count for themselves, they started counting regnal years, [as it is written,] in year two of Darius; in year three of Cyrus, king of Persia. And I am saying, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan.

HALAKHAH: From where years? One verse says, the festival of gathering at the end of the year, and another verse says, the festival of gathering at the turn of the year. Which month contains a festival, and a turning point, and the year starts from it? Which one is this? It is Tishre. If you would say Ṭevet, there is a turning point but neither festival nor gathering. If you would say Nisan, there is a turning point and a festival, but no gathering. If you would say Tamuz, there is a turning point and gathering but no festival. So which one is this? It is Tishre. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah: should it not be Tamuz? He told them, it is written, in the seventh month, and your are saying so? They said to him, should it not be Tamuz? He said to them, from here on you are quarrelling with me about names of months? As Rebbi Ḥanina said, the names of the months ascended with them from Babylonia. Originally, in the month of Ethanim, in which the Patriarchs were born, and the Patriarchs died, and the Mothers were remembered. Originally, in the month of Bul, where the leaves are falling, and the earth is made into lumps; where one mixes for domestic animals in the house. Originally, in the month of Ziw, which is the splendor of the world, when plants are recognized and trees recognized. From then onwards, it was in the month of Nisan of year twenty; it was in the month of Kislew of year twenty; in the tenth month, this is the month of Ṭevet. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, also the names of angels were in their hands from Babylonia. Originally, there flew to me one of the Seraphim; Seraphim standing over Him. From then on, but the man Gabriel; but your lord Michael.

HALAKHAH: There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on the Day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. There are Tannaim who state, every item is judged on its proper time and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. Our Mishnah follows him who said, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time, as we have stated: “and on Tabernacles they are judged about water.” The words of Rav imply that all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day, since it is stated in the blowing prayer of Rav: “This is the day, the beginning of Your works, remembrance of the First Day, for it is a decree for Israel, a law for the God of Jacob. On it will be proclaimed for countries which one will be for war, and which one for peace, which one for famine, and which one for plenty. And creatures will be counted on it, to remember them for life or for death.” This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, an individual is judged every moment. What is the reason? You are counting him in the mornings; in moments You are examining him. You are counting him in the mornings, this refers to his provisions; in moments You are examining him, this refers to his food. The Elder Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi: King and public are judged every day. What is the reason? To look after the right of His servant and of His people Israel; each day’s affairs on each day. Rebbi Levi said, He will judge the dry land in equity, will pass judgment over peoples in straightness. The Holy One, praise to Him, judges Israel during daytime when they are occupied earning merit, and the nations during the night, when they are resting from evil deeds. Samuel said, as He judges Israel so he judges the nations. How does Samuel confirm that He will pass judgment over peoples in straightness? He judges them according to the qualified among them; He remembers for them the deeds of Jethro, he remembers for them the deeds of Raḥab the prostitute.

HALAKHAH: Should they not also go for Pentecost? Pentecost is cut out. You find to say sometimes five, sometimes six, sometimes seven. Full months five, regular six, deficient seven.

HALAKHAH: What means בַעֲלִיל? “Generally known”. As you are saying, Molten silver open on earth, refined sevenfold.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon’s reason: As at its start. The Eternal said to Moses and Aaron … This month be for you the first of months.

HALAKHAH: “The following are disqualified.” The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates. When is he accepted? After he breaks his stones, and is checked out, and repents in complete repentance.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Isaac said, the Torah uses any expression. And the man looked confidently at her. “Any amphora which contains two seah.” “If they are fearful.”

HALAKHAH: “If they do not know him,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, so should the Mishnah be stated: Originally one accepted testimony about the new moon from everybody. If they do not know him, one sends another one with him to testify about him. Rebbi Yose said, even as in the Mishnah it is acceptable: If they do not know him, one sends another one with him to testify about him. Why? Because originally one accepted testimony about the new moon from anybody. May a single witness be believed? They gave you from your own. It should be logical that no witnesses should be needed. But they said that witnesses were needed, and they said that a single witness may be believed.

HALAKHAH: What is oil wood? דדנין. Rebbi Jonah said, like maqazna.

HALAKHAH: “A large courtyard was in Jerusalem called Bet Ya`zeq.” What is Bet Ya`zeq? There practice was hoed, as you say, he hoed it and removed its stones.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, even the most error-prone person would not err in this matter, before the sun, after the sun? It only is needed for its concavity; the concavity towards the sun, or the concavity away from the sun? Bar Qappara stated both: Before the sun or behind the sun, the concavity towards the sun or the concavity away from the sun? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is written: Rule and fear are with Him, Who makes peace in His heights. During the existence of the sun it never saw the defect of the moon.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year. You shall sanctify years, [but] one does not sanctfy months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What means sanctified? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts with the most senior person. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the Court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the year one starts from the side. Rebbi Zebida said, but this lower house do not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rebbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rebbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but “in intercalation”, that the Sages added thirty days to it [and intercalated it.] Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rebbi Ḥanina started, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqisch summed up. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi summed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai started, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose summed up. Rebbi Cahana was ordained before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rebbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simlai said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri is that for any month which starts before noontime the eye is not able to see the old moon. And it was stated thus: If the old moon was seen in the morning, the new moon is not seen in the evening. If the new moon was seen in the evening the old moon was not seen in the morning. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, why did Rabban Gamliel accept them? Because he had a tradition from his forefathers that sometimes it moves in a shortcut, sometimes it moves on an extended path.

HALAKHAH: To whom did he send? Since it was stated, Rebbi Joshua said, it would have been better for me would I be sick in bed and Rabban Gamliel had not sent this, it implies that he sent to Rebbi Joshua. Through whom did he send? Since it was stated, in the following expression he said to him, Aqiba, you consoled me, it implies that he sent through Rebbi Aqiba. What should he have inferred? Rebbi Yose said, we know that if they sanctified it without witnesses it is sanctified. For what does he testify? “For if they sanctified it and then the witnesses were found perjured, it is sanctified.” But did we not state, “it happened that more than 40 couples passed by and Rebbi Aqiba held them back in Lydda”? Because they are 40 couples. But if it had been a single couple he would not have held them back.

HALAKHAH: It is written, the Eternal Who made Moses and Aaron and Who brought up etc. Then the Eternal sent Yerubbaal, and Bedan, and Yephtah, and Samuel. Yerubbaal is Gideon. Bedan is Simson. Yephtah is Yephtah the Gileadite. He combined the three most lightweight of the world with the three most powerful of the world, to teach you that the Courts of Gideon, and Yephtah, and Simson are of equal consideration as those of Moses, Aaron, and Samuel. Not only this but He mentioned the great ones on both sides and the little ones in the middle.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Either the court or all of Israel.