hillel

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Can one pour in from a stream? Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, the disagreement of Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If he did this on the Sabbath, is he guilty because of cooking? If he did this with meat and milk, is he guilty because of cooking? He said to him, parallel to what Rebbi Zeїra said, what is certainly a dumpling? Only if fire burned underneath it. So here also, what is certainly a cooked dish? Only if fire burned underneath it.

MISHNAH: If children hid figs for the Sabbath and he forgot to tithe them they may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they are tithed. A Sabbath basket the House of Shammai free but the House of Hillel obligate. Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who fills a harvesting basket to send to a friend may not eat from it unless he tithed. He who takes olives from the vat may dip them singly into salt and eat them, but if he salted them as a dish he is obligated. Rebbi Eliezer says, from a pure vat he is obligated but from an impure one he is free because he might put the leftovers back [into the vat]. One may drink from the winepress both warm or cold and is free, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq declares him obligated. But the Sages say, for warm drink he is obligated, cold he is free.

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥanina bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

Rebbi Zevida was sitting and teaching his son: “if somebody wants to exchange [tithe] money for produce today, both these and those are consecrated, the words of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, the money is as it was and the produce is as it was.” Rebbi Crispus passed by and told him, do not state it so but say “produce for money.” Therefore, everybody agrees that money for produce was not consecrated. But did we not state: “if there is no Temple they should be left to rot”? Explain it if he dedicated it when there was a Temple and the Temple was destroyed.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.

What is between them? Rebbi Jonah said, pulling out of water is between them. The House of Shammai say, one pulls out of the water with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one pulls out of the water with impure hands. It is stated: “These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah, he says that the House of Shammai say, it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in pulling it out of water.” What is between them? Rebbi Mattaniah said, softening is between them. The House of Shammai say, one softens with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one softens with impure hands.

What is between them? Rebbi Jonah said, pulling out of water is between them. The House of Shammai say, one pulls out of the water with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one pulls out of the water with impure hands. It is stated: “These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah, he says that the House of Shammai say, it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in pulling it out of water.” What is between them? Rebbi Mattaniah said, softening is between them. The House of Shammai say, one softens with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one softens with impure hands.

What is between them? Rebbi Jonah said, pulling out of water is between them. The House of Shammai say, one pulls out of the water with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one pulls out of the water with impure hands. It is stated: “These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah, he says that the House of Shammai say, it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in pulling it out of water.” What is between them? Rebbi Mattaniah said, softening is between them. The House of Shammai say, one softens with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one softens with impure hands.

MISHNAH: Of profane and Second Tithe coins that were strewn around, what one collected goes to Second Tithe until complete, the remainder is profane. If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is in proportion. That is the principle: What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together by proportion. If a tetradrachma of Second Tithe was mixed up with a profane one, one brings coins in the value of a tetradrachma and says: The tetradrachma of Second Tithe, wherever it may be, is exchanged for these coins. Then he chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them since they said, one exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency, not that it should stay so but that he should exchange them for silver. The House of Shammai say, a person should not turn his tetradrachmas into gold denars but the House of Hillel permit it. Rebbi Aqiba said, for Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua I turned their silver coins into gold denars.

MISHNAH: He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. If part of one’s children were pure and part impure, he puts down the tetradrachma and says, this tetradrachma shall be exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher.

MISHNAH: He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. If part of one’s children were pure and part impure, he puts down the tetradrachma and says, this tetradrachma shall be exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.

“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree with us that Second Tithe of not fully processed produce may be redeemed and eaten anywhere? Also with fully processed produce it is the same. The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce which one may abandon and thereby free from tithes, what can you say about fully processed produce which one cannot abandon and thereby free from tithes. The House of Hillel replied to them: Even fully processed produce one may abandon and thereby free from tithes; are not baskets of eating figs or grapes fully processed?” This proves that baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing. “The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce for which one may take Second Tithe from another place, what can you say about fully processed produce for which one cannot take Second Tithe from another place!” This answers the question simply.

“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree with us that Second Tithe of not fully processed produce may be redeemed and eaten anywhere? Also with fully processed produce it is the same. The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce which one may abandon and thereby free from tithes, what can you say about fully processed produce which one cannot abandon and thereby free from tithes. The House of Hillel replied to them: Even fully processed produce one may abandon and thereby free from tithes; are not baskets of eating figs or grapes fully processed?” This proves that baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing. “The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce for which one may take Second Tithe from another place, what can you say about fully processed produce for which one cannot take Second Tithe from another place!” This answers the question simply.

MISHNAH: A tree which stands inside and [its crown] extends outside, or stands outside and extends inside, what is above the wall and inside is like inside, above the wall and outside is like outside. Oil presses whose entrances are inside but their space extends to the outside or whose entrances are outside but their space extends to the inside, the House of Shammai say it is all counted as inside, but the House of Hillel say what is under the wall and inside is like inside, under the wall and outside is like outside. If chambers are built in the holy precinct and open to the profane domain, their insides are profane but their roofs holy. If they are built in the profane domain but open to the holy precinct, their insides are holy but their roofs profane. If they are built in the holy and the profane and open both to the holy and the profane, their insides and their roofs, over the holy and in direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.

MISHNAH: Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and became impure, whether from original impurity or from derivative impurity, inside [the city] or outside, the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside. But the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure.

It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure.

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything, before he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

MISHNAH: He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it. He who put aside a dupondius and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it would be worth an as, has to eat another half. He who put aside an as of Second Tithe eats for it 11 as and 1/100 of an as; the House of Shammai say, 10 in total, but the House of Hillel say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10.

MISHNAH: [Grapes from] a fourth-year vineyard have to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. What is this? Eilat from the South, Aqrabeh from the North, Lydda from the West, the Jordan from the East. When the fruits increased they decreed that they might be redeemed [even] close to the city wall. There was a condition made that anytime they decided, they could return to the previous situation. Rebbi Yose says, this condition was introduced when the Temple was destroyed, viz., that one would return to the previous situation if the Temple would be rebuilt soon, in our days. A fourth-year vineyard, the House of Shammai say, is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

MISHNAH: [Grapes from] a fourth-year vineyard have to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. What is this? Eilat from the South, Aqrabeh from the North, Lydda from the West, the Jordan from the East. When the fruits increased they decreed that they might be redeemed [even] close to the city wall. There was a condition made that anytime they decided, they could return to the previous situation. Rebbi Yose says, this condition was introduced when the Temple was destroyed, viz., that one would return to the previous situation if the Temple would be rebuilt soon, in our days. A fourth-year vineyard, the House of Shammai say, is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

MISHNAH: How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma. In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value. If all of it was abandoned, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift. The removal was on the day before the first day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients, First Tithe to its recipients, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed. He who had produce in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

MISHNAH: How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma. In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value. If all of it was abandoned, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift. The removal was on the day before the first day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients, First Tithe to its recipients, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed. He who had produce in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

Everybody agrees that bread and oil have to be removed, wine and spices are as if removed. Where do they disagree: A cooked dish the House of Shammai says one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say one does not have to remove.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25): “Bundle” only “the money in your hand.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Even if he exchanges, what good does it do?

“Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of maẓẓah and bitter herbs? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times. Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.

“Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of maẓẓah and bitter herbs? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times. Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.

“Second Tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed”. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, Rebbi Hillel ben Vales argued in the name of Rebbi Jehudah from the following: “First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave”.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

“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.

This means that biting is biblical. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer obligated only hereditary tenants, for example from Hillel to the House of Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Rebbi Eliezer fined him. Where do they differ? For a temporary sharecropper. For him who says a fine, he is obligated. For him who says hereditary tenants, he is exempt.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: If a young tree was attached to an old one, the young one was cleansed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, the Mishnah says so: “Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted.” Should we not say that maybe the young tree formed roots before it was well connected to the old one? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel: This follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says it connects well more quickly than it forms roots.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

“It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked a citron and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel.” Why about a citron and not about any tree? It was stated “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But are Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not from the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Šebaṭ of the second year and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the second tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

“It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked a citron and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel.” Why about a citron and not about any tree? It was stated “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But are Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not from the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Šebaṭ of the second year and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the second tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, a Pharisee sufferer from gonorrhea may not eat with a vulgar sufferer from gonorrhea, but the House of Hillel permit it.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? This one suffers from gonorrhea and that one suffers from gonorrhea. But what is the reason of the House of Shammai? If he gets used to him during the days of his impurity he will remain used to him in the days of his purity. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya commanded Rav, if you are able to eat profane food in purity the entire year long, eat it. But if not, eat it seven days per year.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, a Pharisee sufferer from gonorrhea may not eat with a vulgar sufferer from gonorrhea, but the House of Hillel permit it.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? This one suffers from gonorrhea and that one suffers from gonorrhea. But what is the reason of the House of Shammai? If he gets used to him during the days of his impurity he will remain used to him in the days of his purity. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya commanded Rav, if you are able to eat profane food in purity the entire year long, eat it. But if not, eat it seven days per year.

MISHNAH: These are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon, when they came to visit him. They voted and the House of Shammai had the majority over the House of Hillel; eighteen items they decided on that day.

Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: The students of the House of Shammai were standing downstairs and killing the students of the House of Hillel. It was stated, six of them went up; the rest were standing around them with swords and lances.

And about the rules for the land of Gentiles. But did not Rebbi Zeˋira bar Abinna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Joseph ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity of the land of Gentiles and of glass vessels; Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetaḥ decreed impurity of metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed about purity of hands. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi: so practice had been in their hands but they forgot it. The secondary [authorities] came and agreed with the intent of the first ones. To teach you that everything for which the Court made a real effort will in the end be confirmed for them as it was said to Moses on Sinai. This comes as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty matter for you, if it is an empty matter, it is from you since you do not exert yourselves for it. For it is your life. When is it your life? Any time you are exerting yourselves for it.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch, unless they will be soaked when it still is daylight; but the House of Hillel permit it.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer; the House of Hillel put a question to the House of Shammai which they could not answer. “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, do you not agree with us that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, each drop already was dislocated; here what can you say?

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer; the House of Hillel put a question to the House of Shammai which they could not answer. “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, do you not agree with us that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, each drop already was dislocated; here what can you say?

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer; the House of Hillel put a question to the House of Shammai which they could not answer. “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, do you not agree with us that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, each drop already was dislocated; here what can you say?

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer. “The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, do you not agree with us that one does not roast meat, or onions, or an egg, unless they be completely roasted when it is still daylight? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, onion, meat, or egg, usually are flipped; here, what can you say? Rebbi Yudan said, if they were roasted like Ben Derosai’s food. They forbade something which usually is flipped unless it be completely roasted as long as it is still day. Rebbi Mana said, it is not reasonable that it should be permitted. For they can say to them, how can you respond to us with something which ordinarily is completely roasted when it still is day about something which ordinarily cannot be completely soaked when it still is day?

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer. “The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, do you not agree with us that one does not roast meat, or onions, or an egg, unless they be completely roasted when it is still daylight? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, onion, meat, or egg, usually are flipped; here, what can you say? Rebbi Yudan said, if they were roasted like Ben Derosai’s food. They forbade something which usually is flipped unless it be completely roasted as long as it is still day. Rebbi Mana said, it is not reasonable that it should be permitted. For they can say to them, how can you respond to us with something which ordinarily is completely roasted when it still is day about something which ordinarily cannot be completely soaked when it still is day?

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven unless they are steamed when it is still daylight, nor wool into a vat unless it may absorb the dye, but the House of Hillel permit it.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven,” etc. What profit does he have? Rebbi Abbahu said, for example these villagers who do not care.Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the vat was taken off. But if the vat was fixed, it is forbidden, since he will be afraid that his dye will have been absorbed and he will add water. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: The House of Hillel learn permitted work from forbidden work. Would it not be forbidden if he did it on the Sabbath? When he did similarly as long as it is still daytime it is permitted.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not set traps for wild animals, or birds, or fish unless they may be caught when it is still daylight, but the House of Hillel permit it.

MISHNAH: They House of Shammai say, one does not sell to a Non-Jew, nor put a load on him unless he may reach a nearby destination, but the House of Hillel permit it.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “They House of Shammai say, one sells to a Non-Jew,” etc. What means “a nearby destination”? It should be as Samuel said, for example as from Ḥuṭra to Nahardea; here it is the same. Some want to say, until he reaches his home. But some want to say, until he reaches his town. Rebbi Aqiba says, that he leaves the place of the door when the day becomes holy around him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Yose: But Rebbi Aqiba comes to determine following the words of the House of Hillel. One does not give to a Gentile on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere. One does not give to a dog on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere.

One sends letters through a Gentile neither on Friday nor on Thursday. The House of Shammai forbid even on Wednesday but the House of Hillel permit. They said about Rebbi Jose the Cohen that his handwriting never was found in the hand of a Gentile.

One embarks on the ocean neither on Friday nor on Thursday. The House of Shammai forbid even on Wednesday but the House of Hillel permit. If it is not dangerous, as from Tyre to Sidon, it is permitted.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not give hides to the tannery worker nor clothing to the Non-Jewish washer unless the work may be done when it is still daylight. In all cases, the House of Hillel permit as long as the sun still shines. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, my father’s house used to give their white garments to a Non-Jewish washer three days before the Sabbath. They both agree that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press.

There, we have stated: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose he should be free from paying restitution, from the following: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money.

MISHNAH: If a cooking stove was heated with straw or stubbles one may put a dish on it, with olive cake or wood he should not put it on unless he emptied or covered it with ashes. The House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish, but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. The House of Shammai say one takes away but may not return it but the House of Hillel say one even may return.

MISHNAH: If a cooking stove was heated with straw or stubbles one may put a dish on it, with olive cake or wood he should not put it on unless he emptied or covered it with ashes. The House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish, but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. The House of Shammai say one takes away but may not return it but the House of Hillel say one even may return.

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

“From a cleaned-out samowar one drinks on the Sabbath.” Therefore not if it was not cleaned out. Rebbi Ashian said, because the coals touch its body. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, because the wind enters its body and the coals will burn. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it was made in pieces; he is afraid that its glue was weathered away and he adds water

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rebbi Simeon [ben Menassia] permits.” Rav comes following Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rebbi Joḥanan following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Meïr says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

Can one pour in from a stream? Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, the disagreement of Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If he did this on the Sabbath, is he guilty because of cooking? If he did this with meat and milk, is he guilty because of cooking? He said to him, parallel to what Rebbi Zeˋira said, what is certainly a dumpling? Only if fire burned underneath it. So here also, what is certainly a cooked dish? Only if fire burned underneath it.

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar, this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says, on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says, as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship. (He retorted,) them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not) separate. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath.

Levi said, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a cave he does not make forbidden. What is [the difference] between a house and a cave? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, a house was separated at some time; a cave never was separated.

They wanted to say, he who said, if the distance between them is less than four [hand-breadths], even if they are not ten [hand-breadths] high. He who said, if they are ten [hand-breadths] high, even if the distance between them is four. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, only if the airspace of karmelit be within ten [hand-breadths].

From a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one transports neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. If it was less than this it is permitted. What is the difference between a rock and a ship? A ship rises and falls; a rock stays in its place. But is it not karmelit? Is it permitted to move on karmelit only four cubits? Rebbi Ila said, it refers to the beginning: “from a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it.” If it was higher it becomes like a fence made for agriculture where inside one is permitted to transport only four cubits. If it was lower one transports from it to the sea and from the sea onto it, and one transports up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, two adjacent karmeliot, may one transport from one to the other? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since the sea surrounds it from all sides it is considered as a single karmelit.

Samuel said, anybody who tightly closes the shutters is liable because of building. This is difficult. Something which if it was done on the Sabbath makes him liable for a purification sacrifice the House of Hillel permit to restore? Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the start. For if you say that he cannot put them back he will not open. Don’t let him open! Then he detracts from the enjoyment of the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa said, he may put them back on condition that he not restore completely. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if there is no door there. But if there is a door he uses the door.

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

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

They asked Hillel the Elder: What to do with people who did not bring their knives with them? He told them, I was informed of the practice but I forgot. But let Israel act; if they are not prophets they are descendants of prophets. Then everybody whose Passover sacrifice was a lamb stuck it in its fleece, for a kid goat he bound it to its horns; it turned out that the Passover sacrifices brought their knives with them. When he saw the action he remembered the practice. He told them, this is what I heard from Shemaya and Abtalion.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified.” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abbin said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14 which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel.

“The drawn should not circumcise lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised convert. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised; because that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Since we have stated that it is a compressed prepuce, it is implied that he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A son was born to Rav Ada bar Ahava in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, testicles became injured and he fasted for him; he died. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him; he died.

“The drawn should not circumcise lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised convert. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised; because that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Since we have stated that it is a compressed prepuce, it is implied that he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A son was born to Rav Ada bar Ahava in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, testicles became injured and he fasted for him; he died. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him; he died.

MISHNAH: The House of Hillel say, one removes from the table bones and shells, but the House of Shammai say, one removes the entire table and shakes it. One removes from the table crumbs less than olive size, hair of chick-peas and lentils, since it is animal feed. One cleans with a sponge if it has a leather handle; otherwise one does not clean with it. The Sages say in any case it may be taken on the Sabbath and is impervious to impurity.

Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, the House of Shammai say, a door on each side. When he enters he closes and locks. But the House of Hillel say, a door on one side and a door frame on the other side. Samuel said, practice follows Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother. Is that not the same as the earlier statement? Rebbi Abba said, if there is a door it can be locked. Rebbi Aḥa instructed one who made a door frame that he had to make it inside of four cubits. Rebbi Aybun instructed in this sense.

MISHNAH: The legitimization of an alley: the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam; Rebbi Eliezer says, two laths. A student said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Ismael that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree about an alley which is less that four [cubits wide] that it is [permitted] either by lath or by beam; about what did they disagree? About one wider than four [cubits] up to ten where the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam. Rebbi Aqiba said, they disagree in both cases.

MISHNAH: The legitimization of an alley: the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam; Rebbi Eliezer says, two laths. A student said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Ismael that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree about an alley which is less that four [cubits wide] that it is [permitted] either by lath or by beam; about what did they disagree? About one wider than four [cubits] up to ten where the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam. Rebbi Aqiba said, they disagree in both cases.

MISHNAH: The legitimization of an alley: the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam; Rebbi Eliezer says, two laths. A student said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Ismael that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree about an alley which is less that four [cubits wide] that it is [permitted] either by lath or by beam; about what did they disagree? About one wider than four [cubits] up to ten where the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam. Rebbi Aqiba said, they disagree in both cases.

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

It was stated, practice follows the student, for if it were not so, would we say following the House of Shammai? Could practice follow the House of Shammai rather than the House of Hillel? But since it was stated, “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, an alley which is not four hand-breadths deep does not need a beam.” The words of the Sages? Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: An alley which is less than four cubits does not need anything.

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

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

MISHNAH: When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say, as long as it is daylight, but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark. If somebody gave away his rights and then brought out, whether in error or intentionally, he forbids, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, intentionally he forbids, in error he does not forbid.