hoshaia

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: He explained this about one who forgot. A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

“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.

“It should be reduced.” How does one reduce? He makes a platform at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. How much must it be? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Four hand-breadths for an alley. Rebbi Yose says, one hand-breadth corresponding to the beam. The colleagues say, anything, since here is no longer a height of twenty cubits in the widths of a hand-breadth.

If a porch was totally open to the public domain, Rebbi La: [Rav] and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, one may carry in its entirety; Samuel said, one may carry in it only four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, does not Samuel agree that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified? But Samuel must hold, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. There came Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. Rebbi Yose said, even if Samuel would think that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified, an alley is not comparable to a porch. An alley is made for the use of the adjacent houses, a porch is made for the use (of a thing). If an alley is not roofed but there is a beam within twenty cubits, would it not be qualified? But if a porch is not roofed although there is a beam within twenty cubits, would that mean anything?

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Doors which open on the public road, if they are open their place becomes public domain, if they are locked their place becomes private domain. Alleys that open on the sea are like alleys open to an agricultural area. The street of Rebbi Ḥanin does not need a door frame since it descends ten hand-breadths within three [cubits]. They made an arrangement to allow the lower-lying houses.

Two beams, on each one half of a hand-breadth; how much can be between them? Rebbi Zeˋira said, half a hand-breadth. What is the difference between half a hand-breadth on either side and half a hand-breadth in the middle? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a hand-breadth. Two beams, on each a little more than a third of a hand-breadth and between them less than a third of a hand-breadth. This parallels what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four [hand-breadths], on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space.

Rebbi Jonah said: Rebbi Hoshaia asked, what do you say about that symbolic fence, on top or at the sides? If you say on top, so much more on the sides. If you say on the sides, then not on the top. If you say on the top, Rebbi Ḥaggai said it correctly. If you say from the sides, Rebbi Ḥaggai did not say anything. What do you want to say, if on top, it must be on top. Or from the sides, it is on the sides. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Explain it if they were strung on forked poles.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted, as we have stated there: “And similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not inverted. Rebbi Jeremiah said, for he is of Rav Jehudah’s opinion, as Rav Jehudah said, that is if it is open to a domain of difficult access. But if it was open to the public domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, how does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam at each side but the Sages say a lath and a beam on one side and he shall make a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? Here about ten [cubits], there about thirteen. The words of the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rav Hoshaia asked my father, how large can the breach of an alley be in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah? And he told him, thirteen [cubits]. And here he says so? The Rabbis of Caesarea say, there what is standing is more than what is breached but here what is breached is more than what is standing.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: one adds a limb to it. He lifted his eyes and looked at him. He told him, why are you looking at me? Do I need you that you enjoy it? Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. It is written and Moses would take the Tent, etc. How far away was it? One mil. It is not written “and it was that anybody asking Moses” but and it was that anybody asking the Eternal. From here that anybody visiting his teacher is as if he was visiting the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav: It is written, Eliahu from Tisbe said, etc. Was not Eliahu the ruler of the prophets? But it teaches that all the time he was standing before his teacher Aḥiyya from Shilo it was as if he stood before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of those of the House of Shilo: Even when Eliahu wanted water for his face Elisha would put it on his hands. What is the reason? Here is Elisha ben Shafaṭ, it is not written here “who studied Torah”, but who poured water on Eliahu’s hands. It is written: The lad Samuel was serving the Eternal before Eli. Did he not only serve Eli? But this teaches that all service which he rendered before his teacher Eli was as if he rendered if before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ismael stated: And Aaron and all the Elders of Israel came to eat bread with Moses’s father-in-law before god. Did they eat before God? But from here that anyone who receives a friend is as if he received the Divine Presence.

How did Israel travel in the desert? Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, like a chest, but the other said, like a beam. He who said like a chest, just as they camped so they travelled. He who said like a beam, the collector of all camps with their armies. How does he who said like a beam explain him who said like a chest, just as they camped so they travelled? Just as they camped following the Word, so they travelled following the Word. How does he who said like a chest explain him who said like a beam, the collector of all camps with their armies? Since the tribe of Dan was so populous it travelled last and to anybody who had lost anything they would return it to him; that is what is written, the collector of all camps with their armies.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “Also its ledges and walls were measured with it.” Rav Hoshaia asked: is the airspace of a courtyard measured with it? Let us hear from the following: A house which was breached on one side is measured with it, from two sides it is not measured with it. Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rav Jehudah, if its beam had been removed. But if its beam had not been removed it is measured with it. If the beam had been removed is it not like the airspace of a courtyard? There it was enclosed as a dwelling, here it was not enclosed as a dwelling. “If he measures he should not be measuring from the center since he would lose, but from the corners.”

Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, for what is this needed? For what we have stated, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob”. But following the rabbis? The rabbis disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.

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

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

What are remains of an eruv? Similar to what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A hyssop with which he sprinkled once is qualified; more that that are remains. And here it is the same.

Rebbi Eleazar (ben Rebbi Simeon) in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were three; each one uses a ruin through his door and the middle [space] is forbidden. When is this? If the middle [space] belonged to both of them. But if the middle [space] belonged to a person from the market, one uses one [property] and the other one uses one [property] and a second one.

“Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking.” Rebbi Hoshaia stated: And another one comes and kneads in their stead. There are Tannaim who state: Three qab wheat or four qab barley. There are Tannaim who state: Four qab wheat or three qab barley. He who said, three qab wheat, if they have fat, or four qab barley, if they have no fat. He who said, four qab wheat, if they are soft, or three qab barley, if they are hard.

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

Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed over it and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. There is a difference, since every single freestanding vine is a separate planting.

Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed over it and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. There is a difference, since every single freestanding vine is a separate planting.

There, we have stated: “What is ‘far away’? From Modiin and farther away, and in the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, from the doorstep of the Temple courtyard and farther away.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only not to make him liable for extirpation. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah implies this: “Rebbi Aqiba answered him, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment.” Is it a commandment to sprinkle? Explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Fourteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he his prevented from fulfilling the commandment. Rav Hoshaia said, explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Thirteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then the next day he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he is prevented from fulfilling the commandment. It was found stated following the first [explanation].

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.

If one of the members of a group became impure but it is not known who it is, they must make the Second. If one of the public became impure but it is not known who it is, Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall make the Second. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, they shall be treated as a case of doubt. It is reasonable following Rebbi Hoshaia, not to subject the individual to punishment of extirpation.

If one of the members of a group became impure but it is not known who it is, they must make the Second. If one of the public became impure but it is not known who it is, Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall make the Second. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, they shall be treated as a case of doubt. It is reasonable following Rebbi Hoshaia, not to subject the individual to punishment of extirpation.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said 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. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

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 in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there, “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his hands.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

“also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”, “the Bet there” by ’’from the Bet there”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

Rebbi Hoshaia in the name of Rebbi Ephes: About givings between the beams; but givings between the gobelins the he-goat is obstructive for the bull. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave of the bull’s blood between the beams and between the gobelins and afterwards freshly slaughtered the he-goat it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, if the bull’s and the he-goat’s blood in the cup was spilled, would he not bring another bull and it would be qualified? What is the difference whether he slaughtered before he gave or slaughtered after he gave? If it had said “he gives” that would have been correct.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Meïr said, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he heard Hallel in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink to feel differently, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, he will not become drunk. May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color, when put in our cup. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

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

The teacher of the great Rebbi Hoshaia’s son was blind and he used to invite him to eat with him every day. One day there were guests and he did not ask him to eat with him. In the evening, he went to him and said: Please, Sir, do not be angry with me. [Since I had guests, I did not want risking injuring the Sir’s honor, therefore I did not eat with you today.] He said to him, you assuaged him who is seen but does not see; may He be appeased by you Who sees but is not seen. He asked him, from where do you have this? He said, from Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. For there came a blind man to Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s town; Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob sat below him so that they should say if he were not a great person, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob would not sit below him. They provided for him in honor. He asked them, what is this? They told him, because Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob sat below you. He prayed for him the following prayer: You did a good deed for one who is seen but does not see; He Who sees but is not seen may be appeased by you and do good for you.

But the rabbis say, the Ark was hidden in the storage room of the wood. It happened that a blemished Cohen was splitting wood in the storage room of the wood and saw a floor plate different from the others. He came and said to a colleague, come and see this floor plate which is different from the others. They did not finish the matter before his soul left him; then they knew that there the Ark was hidden. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: He hit on it with a sledgehammer; fire erupted and burned him.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Diversion of attention requires {loss of} shape. Rav Hoshaia said, the Mishnah says so, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning.” Rebbi Yose says, this is correct. You may not eat it for maybe its shape already is lost. <you may not burn it for maybe its shape is not lost> Therefore it had to say, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning”.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Diversion of attention requires {loss of} shape. Rav Hoshaia said, the Mishnah says so, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning.” Rebbi Yose says, this is correct. You may not eat it for maybe its shape already is lost. <you may not burn it for maybe its shape is not lost> Therefore it had to say, “it has to lose its shape and be taken out to be disposed of by burning”.

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

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

Rav Hoshaia asked: If he brought a plank and put it protruding on top of a pillar. It is obvious that if he measures from the plank there are twenty cubits, if he measures from the ground it is not twenty cubits. How do you treat this? As disqualified space, as disqualified thatching? If you are treating it as disqualified space, it disqualifies by three hand-breadths. If you are treating it as disqualified thatching, it only disqualifies by four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Ḥizqiah: Disqualified thatching only disqualifies by four cubits, since it serves only to permit the sukkah. Rebbi Miasha said, I am wondering what was Rav Hoshaia’s problem? Why does he not infer from the statement of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, since we stated there: “If one makes the wall hanging from top to bottom, if it is more than three hand-breadths higher than the ground it is disqualified;” and Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if he does not sit and eats in the shade of the walls, but if he was sitting and eating in the shade of the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, that of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal is not an inference since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal learned it from another Mishnah, as we have stated there: “From a balcony above the sea one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high either above or below.” And Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water the full length of a pail. But one cannot compare it. The sea is karmelit, neither private nor public domain. But here the Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. From the floor of the sukkah you measure twenty cubits.

Rav Hoshaia asked: If he brought a plank and put it protruding on top of a pillar. It is obvious that if he measures from the plank there are twenty cubits, if he measures from the ground it is not twenty cubits. How do you treat this? As disqualified space, as disqualified thatching? If you are treating it as disqualified space, it disqualifies by three hand-breadths. If you are treating it as disqualified thatching, it only disqualifies by four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Ḥizqiah: Disqualified thatching only disqualifies by four cubits, since it serves only to permit the sukkah. Rebbi Miasha said, I am wondering what was Rav Hoshaia’s problem? Why does he not infer from the statement of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, since we stated there: “If one makes the wall hanging from top to bottom, if it is more than three hand-breadths higher than the ground it is disqualified;” and Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if he does not sit and eats in the shade of the walls, but if he was sitting and eating in the shade of the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, that of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal is not an inference since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal learned it from another Mishnah, as we have stated there: “From a balcony above the sea one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high either above or below.” And Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water the full length of a pail. But one cannot compare it. The sea is karmelit, neither private nor public domain. But here the Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. From the floor of the sukkah you measure twenty cubits.

And it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. Rav Hoshaia asked, what if the one hand-breadth one is put in the middle? He came back and asked, if one of the four hand-breadths ones was put in the middle, how is it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Such a case came before Rebbi Yasa and he qualified it. And it was stated thus: “If a courtyard is enclosed by pillars, the pillars are like walls.” Does not a baraita disagree? If they are made according to the rules they are qualified, not according to the rules disqualified. They wanted to say, in the middle. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if these are not opposite those. Rav said, that one of one hand-breadth must be removed from the wall by one hand-breadth. Samuel said, even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one follows this one, the other one the other. Cahana and Assi came and asked before Rav following that of Samuel. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if it is within three hand-breadths like a lathe.

Rebbi Jonah said: Rebbi Hoshaia asked, what do you say about that symbolic fence, on top or at the sides? If you say on top, so much more on the sides. If you say on the sides, then not on the top. If you say on the top, Rebbi Ḥaggai said it correctly. If you say from the sides, Rebbi Ḥaggai did not say anything. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Explain it if they were strung on forked poles,.

Excess sticks that exceed the sukkah are considered part of the sukkah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Only if it is on the entire front. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even at a wall. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even not at a wall. In the opinion of Rebbi Yasa it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, how could you be lenient in this if its sunshine is more than its shade?

Excess sticks that exceed the sukkah are considered part of the sukkah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Only if it is on the entire front. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even at a wall. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even not at a wall. In the opinion of Rebbi Yasa it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, how could you be lenient in this if its sunshine is more than its shade?

“Or where the sunshine is larger than the shade is disqualified;” therefore half and half is qualified. “A wilted sukkah whose shade is more than its sunshine is qualified.” Here you are saying it is qualified, there you are saying it is disqualified. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is different for a tree which usually is spreading.

One who makes a sukkah for himself, says: “He Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a sukkah.” For others: “to make a sukkah in that one’s name.” If he enters it, he says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to dwell in a sukkah.” After he recited the benediction in the first night of the holiday he does not have to recite it again. Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Does one have to mention the time after nightfall? Rav Hoshaia said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ila said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Zevida said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada formulated it as a tradition: Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Oshaia: After nightfall one has to mention the time.

One who makes a sukkah for himself, says: “He Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a sukkah.” For others: “to make a sukkah in that one’s name.” If he enters it, he says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to dwell in a sukkah.” After he recited the benediction in the first night of the holiday he does not have to recite it again. Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Does one have to mention the time after nightfall? Rav Hoshaia said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ila said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Zevida said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada formulated it as a tradition: Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Oshaia: After nightfall one has to mention the time.

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

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

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

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 ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “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 Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this 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 that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun 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.

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

A ram’s horn of idolatry or a seduced city. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is qualified. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is disqualified. Everybody agrees about a lulav that it is disqualified. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a lulav? Rebbi Yose said, about a lulav it is written: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Not from what is forbidden for usufruct. But here, a day of horn blowing it shall be for you. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation by the thing itself. But here he fulfills his obligation by the sound. Is there a sound which is forbidden for usufruct?

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

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia. [One said,] already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone. But the other one says, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said, already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone, it follows that Rebbi Ze`ira said, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. “It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked an etrog 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 do Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not refer to the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Shevaṭ` 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 tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia. [One said,] already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone. But the other one says, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said, already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone, it follows that Rebbi Ze`ira said, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. “It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked an etrog 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 do Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not refer to the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Shevaṭ` 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 tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

Rebbi Eleazar said, παρά βασιλέως ‘ο νόμος ʼάγραφος. Usually in the world a king of flesh and blood decides a decision. If he desires it, he keeps it. If he desires it, others keep it. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not so but if He decides a decision He keeps it first. What is the reason? They have to keep My watch, I am the Eternal, I am He Who keeps the commandments of the Torah first. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, before white hairs you have to stand, and honor the presence of an elderly person, and to fear your God, I am the Eternal. I am He Who first stood before an elderly person. Rebbi Simon said, it is written: for who is a great people which has just laws and ordinances, etc. <For who is this great people that has God close to it.> Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world a person who knows that he will stand in trial dresses in black, wears black headdress, and lets his beard grow, since he does not know how his trial will end. But Israel are not so, but they wear white, wear white headdress, cut their beard, eat, and drink, and are happy. They know that the Holy One, praise to Him, will perform wonders for them. But the other one said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world if the ruler says, the trial is today, but the robber says, tomorrow is the trial, whom does one listen to, not the ruler? But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this. If the Court said, today is New Year’s Day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, put up the dais, [summon defenders, summon accusers, for My children said that today is New Year’s Day.] If the Court took counsel to transfer it to the next day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, remove the dais, remove the defenders, remove the accusers, for My children took counsel to transfer to tomorrow. What is the reason? Certainly, it is a rule for Israel, a law of the God of Jacob. If it is not a rule for Israel, so to speak it is not a law for the God of Jacob. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the past, the festive times of the Eternal, from then and onwards which You shall declare. Rebbi Ila said, if you declare them they are My festive times, otherwise they are not My festive times. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, great things You did, You, Eternal my God, Your wonders and intentions regarding us. In the past, great things You did; from then onwards, Your wonders and intentions regarding us. Rebbi <Joshua ben> Levi said, a parable of a king who had a watch; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a parable of a king who had a watch-box; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Aḥa said, a parable of a king who had a ring; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, a parable of a carpenter who had carpenter’s tools; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. Rebbi Isaac said, a parable of a king who had treasures; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. But the rabbis say, a parable of a healer who had a box of medicines; when his son came of age, he handed it to him.

“Rabban Gamliel says, the public reader absolves the public from their obligation.” The great Rabbi Ḥuna of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel in this prayer combined with shofar blowing. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Ḥisda were sitting there during the prayer combined with shofar blowing. After they finished praying the prayer, Rav Ḥisda got up and prepared to pray. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, did we not pray already? He said to him, we prayed and I am going back to pray, for Westerners came down and said (there) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rabban Gamliel in this prayer combined with shofar blowing; but I did not concentrate. If I had concentrated I would have fulfilled my obligation. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is correct. All Tannaim state this in the name of Rabban Gamliel, but Rebbi Hoshaia states it in the name of the Sages. Rebbi Ada from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only if he is present from the start of the prayer. Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Mishnah implies this: “The order of benedictions: One recites “fathers”, “mightiness”, and “Sanctification of the name.”

[“The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide.”] They agree that one may not scrape it. Where do we hold? If it is connected to it, it is part of its body. If separated, it parallels what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥinena from Cartagena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: On a saddle bag full of coins one puts a loaf and may move it. As the following: an Antiochene cooking vessel fell on Rebbi Jeremiah on the Sabbath; they thought about it and lifted it. Not that practice follows Rebbi Hoshaia but that Rebbi Jeremiah should not be endangered. They agree that one may not salt it. It was stated: but he might salt meat on it to roast. The colleagues in the name of Rav: A person may salt a large quantity even though he will be able to eat form it only a small quantity. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One salts cunningly, and salts cunningly; he salts here and salts there until he salted everything.

[“The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide.”] They agree that one may not scrape it. Where do we hold? If it is connected to it, it is part of its body. If separated, it parallels what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥinena from Cartagena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: On a saddle bag full of coins one puts a loaf and may move it. As the following: an Antiochene cooking vessel fell on Rebbi Jeremiah on the Sabbath; they thought about it and lifted it. Not that practice follows Rebbi Hoshaia but that Rebbi Jeremiah should not be endangered. They agree that one may not salt it. It was stated: but he might salt meat on it to roast. The colleagues in the name of Rav: A person may salt a large quantity even though he will be able to eat form it only a small quantity. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One salts cunningly, and salts cunningly; he salts here and salts there until he salted everything.

It was stated: And not the key; the House of Hillel permit. And Rav Hoshaia the son of Rav Isaac said, this refers to a key of edibles, but not to a key of implements. But did not Rebbi Abbahu sit and teach, and a key of a jewel box in his hand? He had pepper inside.

HALAKHAH: It is difficult for the House of Shammai. A large thigh one is permitted to send, a small kid goat one is not permitted to send. Rebbi Yudan said, it only is understood if he carries it. But if he draws it and it walks, what is the difference if he draws it to deliver it or he draws it to let it drink? The Great Rebbi Hoshaia asked Rebbi Jehudah the Prince, did you hear from your father whether one is permitted to move a chicken? Certainly if it was ready for slaughter it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. But are not all chickens ready for slaughter? The question is, maybe even if it is not ready. He told him in a whisper. He asked him, why are you telling me in a whisper? He said to him, just I heard it in a whisper, so I am telling you in a whisper.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

“Neither with a hatchet.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they are saying, one splits with a hatchet. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one splits with a hatchet. Samuel said, practice follows him who said, one splits with a hatchet. It was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Shamua, the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: One may spread a sheet over a swarm of bees in the summer because of the sun, in the rainy season because of the rain. Is this following Rav? Following Samuel? Here on top, there below.

They asked before him, or might we say, here to mention and there to ask for? He said to them, practice is that where one mentions one asks. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanania the brother of Rav Hoshaia, do you remember when we were standing in front of your uncle Rav Hoshaia’s store, Rebbi Ze`ira passed by and we asked him, but he said, this is still problematic for me; Rebbi Yasa passed by and we asked him, but he said, this is still problematic for me. But at the end you heard from him: there is no difference; where one mentions one asks. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice is that where one mentions one asks. Rebbi Aḥa preached in the house of study, Rebbi Jeremiah preached in the council synagogue, practice is that where one mentions one asks. But did we not state, “[on the third of] Marḥeshwan one asks for rain”? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya said, that was stated in Temple times.

They asked before him, or might we say, here to mention and there to ask for? He said to them, practice is that where one mentions one asks. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanania the brother of Rav Hoshaia, do you remember when we were standing in front of your uncle Rav Hoshaia’s store, Rebbi Ze`ira passed by and we asked him, but he said, this is still problematic for me; Rebbi Yasa passed by and we asked him, but he said, this is still problematic for me. But at the end you heard from him: there is no difference; where one mentions one asks. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice is that where one mentions one asks. Rebbi Aḥa preached in the house of study, Rebbi Jeremiah preached in the council synagogue, practice is that where one mentions one asks. But did we not state, “[on the third of] Marḥeshwan one asks for rain”? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya said, that was stated in Temple times.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, as it was stated, “what is the time of rainfall? Rebbi Meïr says, the early one on the Third, the average one on the Seventh, and the late one on the Seventeenth. Rebbi Jehudah says, the early one on the Seventh, the average on on the Seventeenth, and the late one on the Twenty-third. Rebbi Yose said, the early one on the Seventeenth, the average one on the Twenty-third, and the late one on the Thirtieth day, since we find that particular people only start to fast on the New Moon of Kislev.” Rebbi Abbamari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said: everybody agrees that the Seventeenth is the time for the pleiads to disappear, since on it the Deluge came over the world. What is the reason? On this day all sources of the deep abyss were opened. Rebbi Abba bar Zamina, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows him who says, “on the Third of Marḥeshwan one prays for rain”. And why did he not say, following Rebbi Meïr? There are Tannaim who switch.

What means “he shall alterate”? He shall change. If he is used to eat a pound of meat he shall eat half; if he is used to drink a sextarius of wine he shall drink half. Rebbi Joḥanan said, but only for the main meal of the Ninth of Av. Rav Hoshaia said, and only in the afternoon. Rebbi Yose says, both statements are for leniency. If he ate the main meal of the Ninth of Av before noon, even if he brings on his table like Salomon’s meal it is permitted. If he ate his meal in the afternoon, even if he brings on his table like Salomon’s meal in his time it is permitted. It was stated: If the Ninth of Av fell on a Friday or the day before the Ninth of Av on a Sabbath, even if he brings on his table like Salomon’s meal in his time it is permitted. Rav after he had eaten his fill was coloring his piece of bread with ashes and said, this is the main meal of the Ninth of Av, to keep what is said, He filled me with asperity, made me imbue poison.

Rebbi Yudan the Patriarch sent the Great Rebbi Hoshaia a roast and a pitcher of wine. He sent and told him, you fulfilled with us gifts to the needy. Then he sent him a calf and a barrel of wine. He sent and told him, you fulfilled with us, sending meals one person to the other.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: But the Sages are saying that he is qualified neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he does not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest, sometimes he officiates in four, sometimes he officiates in eight. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is stated: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who saw the act and forgot. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Since simple sacrifices and Second Tithe were eaten at sight the person who stated the Mishnah did not need to warn about the consumption but about its bringing. What is the reason? Guard yourself, lest you bring your elevation sacrifices, lest you bring what you are obliged to offer. Rebbi Simeon bar Miasha asked before Rebbi Eleazar: What means “at sight”? Shilo or Shiloh and the Sanctuary at Shilo? He told him, Shiloh and the Sanctuary at Shilo, as for example Bet-Maon, only that there is an interruption and here is no interruption.

The people of Bet Shean asked Rebbi Immi, may one take stones from one synagogue to build another synagogue? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Immi forbade it only to make them feel bad. Rebbi Gorion said, the people from Magdala asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: May one take stones from one village to build in another village? He said to them, it is forbidden. Rebbi Immi instructed, even from East to West is forbidden because of the destruction of that place. May one sell a synagogue to buy a school? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s word implies that it is permitted. For Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he burned the Eternal’s House, that is the Temple, and the king’s house, that is Sedecias’s palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem, these are the 480 synagogues which were in Jerusalem. As Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, each of which had a school and a Talmud study; [the school] for Bible and the Talmud study for Mishnah. Against all of them came Vespasian. And every large house he burned in fire, that is the study of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai where one was telling the great deeds of the Holy One, praise to Him, in the sense of tell please of the great deeds which Elisha accomplished. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: That you are saying about a private synagogue. But with a public synagogue it is forbidden; I am saying that one at the end of the world has part in it. But did we not state, “it happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq bought the synagogue of the Alexandrians and used it for all his needs”? The Alexandrians made it from their own. So far if it was built as a synagogue. If it was built as a court and he dedicated it, what is the rule? Let us hear from the following: “A qônam that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue.” This implies that if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it became sanctified. When is it sanctified, immediately [or] at the moment of use? Let us hear from the following: If one builds a chest for a scroll or makes ribands for a scroll. As long as it was not used for a scroll profane use is permitted; after it was used for the scroll private use is prohibited. Therefore, if these who were made for a scroll are not sanctified until used, this which was built as court not so much more? What is the rule for these if they were made for profane use? Since you are saying there, if it was built as a court and he dedicated it, it is sanctified, so here if they were made for profane use and he dedicated them they are sanctified.

May one write two or three words from a verse? Mar Uqba sent a letter to the Head of the Diaspora who went to sleep and got up with song: Israel, do not enjoy like the Gentiles. Rebbi Aḥa wrote, the remembrance of the just is a blessing. Rebbi Ze`ura wrote, Joash the King did not remember. Rebbi Jeremiah sent a letter to Rebbi Jehudah Nesia, to hate your lovers, to love your hater. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi judged Tamar. She went and complained about them to the prefect of Sepphoris. They sent and wrote to Rebbi Abbahu, who wrote back to them, (twice) [already] we pacified the three informers, the well born, the well learned, and Tarshish, Eutokos, Eumathes, Thalassios; but the rebellious Tamar remains in her rebellious state; we tried to soften her but in vain did one smelt to refine. Rebbi Mana sent a letter to Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, your beginnings were small, your future may be much expanding.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the Levites’ song they should not have less than six readings; its mnemonic is hazayu laḵ. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: [the Song on the Sea] and Deborah’s song are written space on brick and brick on space. The ten sons of Haman and the kings of Canaan are written space on space and brick on brick, since any such building will not stand. How is that, as meritorious act or as impediment? Rebbi said to Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother, do you remember when we were standing in front of your uncle’s store that Rebbi Abba bar Zavda passed by and we asked him when he said in the name of Rav: an impediment?

“The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen, he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there, the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable.

“The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen, he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there, the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable.

“The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen, he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there, the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first, also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania, Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first, also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania, Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first.

“They agree that if it falls on the Sabbath that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath.” So the House of Hillel are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath. Whose are the hides? Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, of all watches. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, of this watch. And you are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath; whose are the hides? The disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Pentecost has all of seven days as make-up. Rav Hoshaia objected: was it not stated, just as the New Moon is one day after its count, to Pentecost is one day after its count? Rebbi La said, if he did not bring his holiday sacrifice on the first day, he may bring it all seven days.

“And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, not that they introduced new impurities for the Red Cow but they said, he who becomes impure in an easy impurity is like one who became impure in severe impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: And it shall be collected by a man, why does the verse say, pure? Think of it. Even if you collect it by a shovel, the Torah requires pure. Where do we hold? If a metal shovel, but also flat metal implements are subject to impurity. If a wooden shovel, is it not held together because of something subject to impurity? Rav Hoshaia said, explain it if he collects it with a plank. Then it is impossible that he should not carry it. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, explain it if he collects it with a coarse cross-beam. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: what is the difference between a person pure for the Red Cow and an empty vessel pure for the Red Cow? He answered him, And it shall be collected by a pure, why does the the verse say, man? Only to prescribe extraordinary purity to the man to handle the water for ashes of the Red Cow and the ashes of the Red Cow. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The moving which I declared pure for you for crawling animals I declared impure for you here.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They stated it for touchings. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, from where did this garment become impure by support? He told him, explain it that the vulgar’s wife sat on it naked. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: As you are saying there, there is no “support” for profane food but there is “support” for profane food by touching, similarly there is no load for profane food but there is load for profane food by touching. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if she sat on a chair and touched it? As you look at it, if load, there is load; it touching there is touching. As you are saying about load, on condition that most of it be carried, similarly if most of it be touched?