hila

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This teaches us that one is not guilty unless he sows two kinds in the vineyard, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Jonathan said, even one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19) “in your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, to make it sinful even with one kind. In the opinion of Rebbi Josia, “in your field do not sow kilaim”; why does it say “do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? The colleagues say, as a warning. If he was warned about “your field”, he is whipped, if he was warned about “your vineyard”, he is whipped. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, to give another measure besides six hand-breadths; here it is four cubits. What are we talking about? If he made a fence on the inside, the vineyard is abolished. If he made a fence on the outside, that is the circumference. But we deal with a field that was a grain field and he cleared four cubits in its midst. This agrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said, nothing forbidden may form a separation to save. They were of the opinion that what is forbidden does form a separation to prohibit. In the opinion of Rebbi Jonathan it is written (Lev. 19:19): “In your field do not sow kilaim”, why does it say: “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard”? For that which Rebbi Hila said, if you would say [the Torah] did not say it, what would you say? Or following what Rebbi Zeïra said, “do not sow your vineyard kilaim,” creating your vineyard do not sow kilaim.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

Rebbi Abbahu went up to Arbel and was received by Abba bar Benjamin. They came and asked him about these onions; he taught them the statement of Rebbi Zeïra “once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.” He saw them relying on him; then he said to them: I was referring only to those that are bent down Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I know beginning and end; when he heard that Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Ammi disagreed, he shrank from it.

It was stated: “Produce of the Land that was exported is removed at its place, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one returns it to the Land and removes it, as it is written (Lev. 25:7): ‘In your Land shall all its produce be food.’ ” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Immi taught following the first Tanna for leniency. Rebbi Hila said, but he should not move it from place to place.

HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you. We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state: “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7): “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it.

It was stated: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are Sabbatical.” Rebbi Zeïra said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? That they may take their wages in the form of Sabbatical produce. Then it must be that, when Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of [the House of] Rebbi Yannai not to take the wages of their oil presses in wine but in money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Hila: the baraita deals with those who carry forbidden produce. What is the meaning of “the wages are Sabbatical”? As Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined him with wine of libations; here also, they fined him.

“If somebody established a lien on a field for his wife but then went and sold it, if she wishes she collects from this field or she collects from any other property.” Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Eleazar instructed following this baraita. The colleagues asked: Should she not collect only from the properties that are under the lien? Rebbi Yose said to them, there are unencumbered properties and you say, those under the lien? The baraita [applies] if he did not say you shall be paid only from this. But when he said, you shall be paid only from this, she may collect only from this.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from incompletely processed produce for completely processed produce,” and here you say so? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of a “fence” for the purification water, lest purification water become useless. What is more serious, robbing the tribe or [breaching] the “fence” for purification water? Let us hear from the following: “[If one gave heave of] olives for olives and in the future he will crush them, grapes for grapes and in the future he will press them, it is heave and he has to give heave a second time.” In this case there is both robbing the tribe and the “fence” for the purification water, but we have stated that it is heave and he has to give heave a second time. This proves that the “fence” for the purification water is more serious than robbing the tribe.

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said in the name of Rebbi Hila (Num. 18:32): “You should not carry sin because of it.” Since he is subject to carrying sin, you know that what he did is valid.

HALAKHAH: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted: There, he says that the lower ones help to lift the upper, and here he says “if the congealed contains”, therefore not the bottom ones. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Cahana: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider this as if he had added intentionally. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider it as a seah lifted from 100. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, one is permitted to add, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden. If it congealed and then congealed a second time, in the opinion of Rebbi Assi it is permitted, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, even if there is no remainder, in the opinion of Cahana only if he left a remainder.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hoshaiah, Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting [there]. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening; they went and asked him. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, maybe that statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me. When they came back, there was Rebbi Hila standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”

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 Yasa said, is everything usable for lulab subject to tithes and everything not usable for lulab not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, there is one that grew in a form or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab 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 (Lev. 23:40) “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; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes.

“ If somebody buys dates to press them, dried figs to pound them, he may not eat a snack from them and must tithe as demay, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, he may eat a snack from them and must give tithes as certain, the words of Rebbi Yose.” Rebbi Hilai, Rebbi Lazar in the name of Hilfai; Rebbi Jonah said, it was found on the writing tablet of Hilfai: He may eat a snack from them and gives tithes as certain. This is difficult! If he may eat a snack from them, he should give certain tithes. If he tithes as demay, he should be forbidden to eat them as a snack! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: He may eat them as snack because their processing is not finished; he gives certain tithes since he [the seller] knows that his house induces ṭevel, he will separate heave from the start.

Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They disagree if he gathers and delivers. But if he gathers for [his own] food, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and is free, but if he takes them together he is obligated.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as they differ here they differ about a secure courtyard since Rebbi Joḥanan said that [the rules of] buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The laborer may eat the first bunch of grapes. It was stated, the last bunch. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Hila: If he put it in the basket it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, that needs to be said if he harvests and another transports. But if he harvests and transports originally he eats because of local usage. At the end he eats because of “ the laborers eat when they go from one row to the next and when they return to the winepress, and the donkey until it is unloaded.”

Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sabbath induces ṭevel? Because they collected for the Sabbath; therefore, not if they did not collect for the Sabbath! Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Even if they collected for the Sabbath one may eat a snack from them on Sabbath eve. It does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Are they not children and even if they collected for the Sabbath it is as if they had not collected for the Sabbath! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Explain if it they collected close to sundown when their action was proof of their intent!

Rebbi Yose in the name of Samuel: The buy is acquired. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Expiation. Rebbi Hila said, since we stated “he has to eat their worth”, that means it was sanctified. Rebbi Yose said, since he took it up, the buy was acquired; from there on it is one buy. Rebbi Yudan said, he has to dedicate it again; he means that maybe it was sanctified when it was not sanctified.

Rebbi Huna said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that he says the pesaḥ sacrifice cannot be substituted; if he substituted a second time it still is a pesaḥ. If he substituted, it is a well-being sacrifice! Rebbi Mana said to him, did my teacher not compare the following? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if well-being sacrifices bought with tithe money developed a blemish and he redeemed them, it does not return to its original status to make it a second. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hila, both in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, one said if well-being sacrifices were bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe broke away from them. If heave was bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe did not break away from it. The Mishnah breaks: Can you object from a case in which the holiness of tithe broke away to a case in which the holiness of tithe did not break away? The other one said, this does not mean one objects from a case in which its holiness broke away to a case in which its holiness did not break away; he says to him, it is one immersion.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21): “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised.” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk.” Is not milk comparable to its being dead? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add a fifth to the second tetradrachma. Rebbi Eleazar stared at him. He said to him, why do you stare at me? Rebbi Hila also agrees with it, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where not it and its redemption money is his, he does not add a fifth.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran (Lev. 13:45): “impure, impure, he shall call out;” the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman (Ez. 39:15): “The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it.” [A bone,] from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hila said, at the start they made wine in purity for Temple libations and grapes were rare. They decreed that it had to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. They used to distribute it to relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances, and a small quantity adorned the market.

(Deut. 14:28) “In that year” your are obliged to remove it but you are not obliged to remove it in any other year. “In that year” you are obliged to remove; you are not required to remove vegetables which grew between New Year’s Day and Passover. The colleagues say, because he can make a declaration [for the latter] only in the fifth year. Rebbi Hila said, because it does not hinder the declaration in the fourth, only in the fifth. Where do they differ? If he transgressed and included it in his declaration. According to the colleagues it is invalid, according to Rebbi Hila is it valid.

(Deut. 14:28) “In that year” your are obliged to remove it but you are not obliged to remove it in any other year. “In that year” you are obliged to remove; you are not required to remove vegetables which grew between New Year’s Day and Passover. The colleagues say, because he can make a declaration [for the latter] only in the fifth year. Rebbi Hila said, because it does not hinder the declaration in the fourth, only in the fifth. Where do they differ? If he transgressed and included it in his declaration. According to the colleagues it is invalid, according to Rebbi Hila is it valid.

HALAKHAH: Is it not ṭevel? Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: This implies that ṭevel is called holy.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

Why should he not make the declaration? Rebbi Hila said, he causes anger before the Omnipresent by saying “I did” when he did not. If it is so, he who separated should make the declaration, he who did not separate should not make the declaration, as we have stated: “Up to ‘Look down’ they were saying it in an undertone, from ‘Look down’ onwards in a high voice.”

And just as you say only the five kinds can become maẓẓah and leavened, so only wheat and barley can be dragged with anything. Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, we have only stated: “He who makes dough from wheat and rice;” only wheat can be dragged in.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab separately and made them leavened, and another four qab separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened.] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila even though he disagrees with him.

Rebbi Hila said: The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 23:14): “until that day proper,” teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” I could think, until it is actually brought? The verse says, “until that day proper.” How is that? Allow for the time needed for bringing.

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed maẓẓah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of (Ps. 10:3): “He who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes.” Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Hila said, (Lev. 27:34): “These are the commandments.” If you did them they way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

How does Rebbi Eliezer explain the reason of Rebbi Aqiba, (Num. 15:17) “To the Land into which I am bringing you?” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer: Do you not agree that when Israel entered the Land and found there coarse and fine flour that this was subject to ḥallah? Did it not grow while exempt? He accepted that. Rebbi Yose said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Aqiba object to Rebbi Eliezer and how could the latter accept it? There, before they entered they had inherited it retroactively, as Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman: It is not written “to your posterity I shall give” but (Gen. 15:18): “to your posterity I gave”, I already gave it.

“Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches ground.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion since Rebbi Jehudah exempts water, as it has no consistency. Rebbi Abin said, it is more reasonable to assume his opinion changed; if the ship does not touch ground, would it not be as if the ship touched ground? If the ship does not touch ground, its tithes are of practice; one tithes from it for a flower pot without hole and from a flower pot without hole for it, as it was stated: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice, its heave does not create dema‘ and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If somebody acquires a flower pot with a hole in Syria, even if he did not acquire the earth under it or the ground on which it stands, he acquired it to be obligated for tithes and the Sabbatical, even if it sits on two pegs. Even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. What is the difference between this case and that of a ship? A ship rises and falls, this [flower pot] rests in its place.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

Rebbi Yose was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. He heard the voice of Rebbi Hila who was sitting and stating: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain; Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The greater part grain and the taste that of grain. He said, he got it wrong: we had a note that Rebbi Assi teaches like Rav Huna.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.

Is Rebbi Ismael not correct? Spelt and wheat are two species. Since they are similar, you say they combine; new and old not so much more? Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis is that spelt and wheat are two species and people will not err to say that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other. New and old are one species and if you say so, one will think that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other.

Some Tannaïm state: The Jordan is part of the Land of Israel. Some state, the Jordan is outside the Land. Some state, the Jordan is a boundary by itself. He who says the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel: (Deut. 3:17) “The prairie, the Jordan, and the border.” He who says the Jordan is outside the Land: (Jos. 18:20): “The Jordan shall form its border Eastward.” He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. “If the Jordan took from one place and gave to another, what it took, it took, and what it gave, it gave.” What are we dealing with? If it was from the Land of Israel and became Syria, it already is under the presumptive obligation of tithes and Sabbatical! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, for claims of possession, removals, and animal tithe. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only if it removed earth.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For ḥallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical.

“The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them.” There, we have stated: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not turn First Fruits into drinks” even after they became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink in order to bring them, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’ ”. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn], sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn], sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yose said he is exempt, from the following: “If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free.” Coriander is different since it has a different threshing floor. But he says from the following: “If someone keeps cabbage for seeds, his opinion is inoperative; for single stalks it is not inoperative.” Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected greens. But if he did not collect greens, do we say that wood is subject to tithes?

“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings” said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ‘orlah. It was also stated thus: (Num. 15:18) “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same, “breaking” and “smashing” is the same, “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same, and here he takes note of a change in expression!

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! But we do not say so, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina said, my father Rebbi Abbahu had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi, and they instructed him according to Rebbi Eliezer. Would they instruct according to an isolated opinion? But it is that they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: If somebody sold him a field with its standing crop, may the buyer bring First Fruits? He said to him, why not? That is, when it is moist; even when it is dry? He said to him, even dry, even harvested. Then even wheat grain; do we say that the buyer on the market brings First Fruits?

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of hereditary tenant farmers. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights. They wanted to say, he who says the Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights, therefore not about simple sharecroppers or tenants. About a temporary sharecropper or tenant farmer; therefore a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer might bring. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer cannot bring. Why? The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights.

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”

There, we have stated: “ ‘Also I gave it,’ includes heave and heave of the tithe.” There, you say that heave needs declaration but here you say, heave does not need declaration. Rebbi Hila said, there they stated: Heave and First Fruits, both the one who gives and the one who takes need to declare. Rebbi Zeïra said, the rabbis there think, and the rabbis here say, if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only heave, he does not declare. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities of refuge.” Where do we hold? If about heave and tithe, they are his. But it must deal with heave. Rebbi Hila said, we [did] understand that if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only First Fruits, he declares. We [now] understand that if a person has only heave, he declares.

There, we have stated: “ ‘Also I gave it,’ includes heave and heave of the tithe.” There, you say that heave needs declaration but here you say, heave does not need declaration. Rebbi Hila said, there they stated: Heave and First Fruits, both the one who gives and the one who takes need to declare. Rebbi Zeïra said, the rabbis there think, and the rabbis here say, if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only heave, he does not declare. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities of refuge.” Where do we hold? If about heave and tithe, they are his. But it must deal with heave. Rebbi Hila said, we [did] understand that if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only First Fruits, he declares. We [now] understand that if a person has only heave, he declares.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Torah does not get up because of her son. Samuel said, one does not get up because of a fellow. Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Jacob bar Idi were sitting. Samuel bar Abba passed by them and they stood up. He said to them: Two things are [wrong] with you. The first, that I am not an Elder. The other, that the Torah does not get up because of her son.

If it comes in impurity of the officiants? How is that? If defective persons slaughtered and pure ones poured. Rebbi Hila said, any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten, but here it was not touched by anybody impure. The meat, anybody pure may eat meat; there are pure ones available to eat it. Rebbi Zeˋira: Since Pesaḥ made in impurity is eaten, [this one is as if brought in impurity]. And where was this said? Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If it comes with impurity of the blood, what is done? Since one does not permit him to pour, is it as if brought in impurity? Or since if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable, is it as if not brought in impurity? Let us hear from the following which was said by [Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. He separated between what is offered on behalf of an individual and what is offered on behalf of the public. If offered for an individual, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Hila: To inform the next in line that he is a miser. You should know that nowhere else is he called miser, but here you are calling him miser. They made it easy for the guest.

The waiter who ate the volume of an olive when he was near the oven, if he is intelligent he fills his belly from it. If they want to honor him, they come and eat with him near the oven; otherwise they give him his part and he eats at his place. There, they are saying, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since they did not hear what Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Issy, Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that at the start they may split, at the end they may not split. Where do they disagree? When they were sitting and a beam cracked over them. Rebbi Simeon says, part of them remove themselves and eat at another place, but the rabbis say, no part of them may remove themselves and eat at another place.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both are saying, in the beginning we used to say that one may sprinkle on an uncircumcised Jew; but we were saying nothing. Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi stated before Rebbi Hila: It is said here then he shall come near to make it, and it is said there, then he may eat of it. Since then mentioned there presumes that he is qualified at the time of eating, so also there mentioned here presumes that he is qualified at the time of (eating) [slaughter].

Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: If the owner died on the Thirteenth, its body is offered as a well-being sacrifice. Why did he not say, on the Fourteenth? Any {animal} which is due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ, its body is not offered as a well-being sacrifice.

“And a purification offering whose owner died,” [has to die. Parallel to what] Rebbi Hila said in the name of Samuel, If the owner died on the Thirteenth, its body is offered as a well-being sacrifice. Why did he {not} say, on the Fourteenth? Everybody agrees that the body of any {animal} due to be sacrificed as Pesaḥ, is not offered as a well-being sacrifice.

“And whose year has passed.” Parallel to what Rav Ḥisda said, If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When the time for its propitiation was passed.

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: 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.

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

“With one cubit between them.” Rebbi Hila said, this is hinted at as we have stated there, “One cubit taraqsin, twenty cubits for the building of the Holiest of Holies.” What is “one cubit taraqsin”? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “confusion”, what is inside-outside. Rebbi Yose said, since it is written, forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple, it means that it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written, he made the building of the Holiest of Holies,…, twenty cubits, it means that it is counted outside. What is the rabbis’ reason? The gobelin shall separate for you, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose do with this Between the Holiest of Holies above and the Holiest of Holies below. Do the rabbis not have this? They have it as we have stated, “the impression of pebbles distinguish above between holy and the Holiest of Holies.”

If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? May a person think of half an atonement? But it is so: If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups [and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups,] to give from one between the beams, and from one on the gobelins, and from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hila, since they disagreed:

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away.. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away.. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

And here, in Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, he must pour all three; in Rebbi Hila’s opinion, he must pour only the one from which he sprinkled.

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: 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.

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

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.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it. {A bone}, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks.

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: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold, etc. The Torah called it real estate. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis, the altar is of wood, three cubits its height, etc. The Torah called it movable. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense. But is it not like a table made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there, “there are three baskets”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

When was it? She became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs. Could she have lived? Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: 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? Rebbi Ismael follows RebbiJehudah, until the black covers most [and] Rebbi Simeon, that intercourse occurred with the idea of the prior qiddushin. Following the opinions of Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Jehudah who say that her status depends on the signs of development, it fits. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon who says, if he adds another act of acquisition, then even if she is an adult! Rebbi Isaac said, that is so. Only that the daughters of Israel should not be unbridled in breaking tabus.

“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, you say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him, and here you say so? He said to him, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law cannot be compared to the prohibition of sisters who are not sisters-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it that the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time. Rebbi Yose asked, did Rebbi Joḥanan say, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law if the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time? Only if they died one after the other. They wanted to say, what was the problem of Rebbi Joḥanan? If the second one died, why should the first one not be permitted to him? But if the first one died, the second should be forbidden to him. Rebbi Yudan said, both cases are the same problem for him. And candidacy counts for nothing since if there are three brothers,two of them paternal but not maternal halfbrothers, and two maternal but not paternal halfbrothers. If the paternal halfbrother died first and the second brother had no time to perform ḥalîṣah or levirate before he died, and she became eligible for his maternal halfbrother, may he not take her? This shows that candidacy is nothing, [otherwise] she should be forbidden as the maternal halfbrother’s wife.

What if there is a co-wife? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Avina: One has stated there, “if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives should be freed. But it must follow Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah without being admitted to levirate. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rebbi Phineas said to Rebbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sistersshould not be freed! But we have stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaïm interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were not freed.

If there were five brothers of whom three married three sisters and died: Rav said, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third [sister] performs ḥalîṣah with whom she wants. Samuel says, each one [of the remaining brothers] performs ḥalîṣah for one of them, and the third performs ḥalîṣah with both of them. Rav said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Samuel said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Rebbi Ze‘ira said that ḥalîṣah is acquisition. Rebbi Hila said that ḥalîṣah is freeing. The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”. Levi said, candidacy is acquisition and each [sister] has to perform ḥalîṣah with both [brothers].

HALAKHAH: “Three brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters,” etc. Do the House of Shammai follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, since Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely? If they would follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh, in case he had divorced the “bespoken” widow, she would not need ḥalîṣah! But Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the House of Shammai agree that if he divorced the “bespoken”, she needs ḥalîṣah! It must be they follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. If they would follow Rebbi Simeon, in any case, if “bespeaking” acquires, nothing follows it. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, why “his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister”? Maybe “bespeaking” for the House of Shammai is like candidacy for Rebbi Simeon in the interpretation of the rabbis there. As the rabbis there say, “bespeaking” acquires and leaves a remainder, so Rebbi Simeon says, [candidacy] acquires and leaves a remainder. Rebbi Simeon says, no candidacy can come after a candidacy, so the House of Shammai say here, no candidacy can come after a “bespeaking”.

HALAKHAH: “Two brothers married to two sisters,” etc. Rebbi Avina said, that is what Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law does not compare with the prohibition of sisters who not are sisters-in-law.

So is the Mishnah: “The relative of a co-wife of a person who had ḥalîṣah with him is permitted to him, but the co-wife of a relative of a person who had ḥalîṣah with him is forbidden”. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman for whom he performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more?

HALAKHAH: “If he performed ḥaliṣah with both of them, performed ḥaliṣah and ‘bespoke’,” etc. “If he performed ḥaliṣah and ‘bespoke’,” etc. There, they say: The words of Rebbi Neḥemiah that an improper copulation frees. In the opinion of the rabbis there copulation frees, whether after “bespeaking” or after a bill of divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, intercourse after “bespeaking” frees; after a bill of divorce it does not free. They did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Neḥemiah, Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Ismael all said the same. As it was stated: “If there were three sisters-in-law for one levir, he ‘bespoke’ one, copulated with the second, and gave a bill of divorce to the third. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the first one needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah, but after copulation there is nothing. An argument de minore ad majus. If nothing comes after ḥalîṣah, which excludes her from the priesthood, whether she copulated or performed ḥalîṣah, then it is only logical that nothing should come after intercourse which does not exclude her from the priesthood, whether she copulated or performed ḥalîṣah. But for the rabbis he is forbidden the relatives of all three of them and they need three bills of divorce and ḥalîṣah for one of them.”