ila

If one takes payment for seeing first borns, they must not be slaughtered by his instructions unless he was an expert like Ila in Yavneh whom the sages permitted to accept four isars for small cattle and six as for large cattle, whether unblemished or blemished.

If the bone of the fore-leg or of its hind-leg is broken, even though it is not noticeable, [this is a blemish]. These blemishes Ila enumerated in Yavneh and the sages agreed with him. He also added another three cases [of blemishes]. They said to him: we have only heard these [already mentioned previously]. [The three added by Ila were]: one whose eyeball is round like that of a human or whose mouth is like that of a pig or if the greater part of the speaking part of the tongue has been removed. A subsequent court ruled however: each of these cases is a [disqualifying] blemish.

If the bone of the fore-leg or of its hind-leg is broken, even though it is not noticeable, [this is a blemish]. These blemishes Ila enumerated in Yavneh and the sages agreed with him. He also added another three cases [of blemishes]. They said to him: we have only heard these [already mentioned previously]. [The three added by Ila were]: one whose eyeball is round like that of a human or whose mouth is like that of a pig or if the greater part of the speaking part of the tongue has been removed. A subsequent court ruled however: each of these cases is a [disqualifying] blemish.

Is has been stated: The Tree of Life is wide a parcourse of 500 years. Rebbi Yehudah ben Rebbi Ilaï said: not only its crown but even its stem.All the splitting of primeval waters splits under it since (Ps. 1:3) “He shall be like a tree planted on split waters.” It has been stated: The Tree of Life is one sixtieth of the Garden. (Gen. 2:10) “And a river originated in Eden to irrigate the Garden.” The remainder of a kur is a triple qab, a sixtieth. The remainder of Africa is Egypt, a sixtieth. We find that it is said that Egypt can be traversed in 40 days. Black Africa can be traversed in slightly more than seven years. But the teachers say [the sky is determined] by the days of the patriarchs (Deut. 11:21) “like the days of the sky over the earth.” And just as the sky over the earth is at a distance of a way of 500 years so between one sky and the next is a way of 500 years and its thickness is a way of 500 years. Why did you see fit to say the thickness of the sky is a way of 500 years? Rebbi Abun said (Gen. 1:6): “There shall exist a spread-sky within the water.” The spread-sky shall be in the middle. Rav said: the sky was wet on the first day and jelled on the second day. Rav said: “There shall exist a spread-sky”: the sky shall strengthen, the sky shall jell, the sky shall solidify, the sky shall be spread. Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi said: The sky (רקיע) shall be made like a piece of cloth, just as it is said (Ex. 39:3) “They stretched (וירקעו) out the gold sheets.”

“Even if a snake is wound around one’s heel, one should not interrupt.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Yose: They mentioned only a snake, but for a scorpion he interrupts. Why, because it stings repeatedly. Rebbi Ilaï said: They stated only “wound around”, but if a snake is attacking him, he hides before him but he should not interrupt his prayer. It is stated: If he was praying in a thoroughfare or on a square he removes himself from before a donkey or before a cart but he should not interrupt his prayer.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner said: Three things did the earthly court decree and the Heavenly Court agreed with them, and they are the following: The ban on Jericho, the Esther scroll, and greeting people using the Name. The ban on Jericho (Jos. 7:11): “Israel sinned.” But was not Joshua the one who decreed it? This certainly implies that the Heavenly Court agreed with them. The Esther scroll (Esth. 9:27): “They confirmed and accepted, etc.” Rav said, “accepted” is written in singular; this implies that they accepted. Greeting people using the Name (Ruth 2:4): “Lo, Boaz came from Bethlehem.” And from where that the Heavenly court agreed with them? The verse says (Jud. 6:12): “The Eternal is with you, o hero!” Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Also tithes, as it is said (Mal. 3:10): “Bring all tithes, etc.” What is: “ Until ‘without enough?’ ” Rebbi Yose bar Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The thing about which it is impossible to say “enough”, that is blessing. Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Chelbo and Rebbi Abba bar Ilaï in the name of Rav: Until your lips will wear out saying, we have enough blessings, we have enough blessings.

Rebbi Ilaï said: I asked Rebbi Joshua, about which sheaves do the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree? He said to me, this is the teaching: The sheaf which was near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, the House of Shammai say it is a forgotten sheaf, but the House of Hillel say it is not a forgotten sheaf. But when I came to Rebbi Eliezer, he told me that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree that a sheaf near a closure, a stack, cattle, or vessels, if it was forgotten, was a forgotten sheaf. What did they disagree about? About a sheaf he took up and put beside a closure, beside a stack, beside cattle, beside vessels, and forgot about it; in that case the House of Shammai say it is not a forgotten sheaf because he already acquired rights to it. But the House of Hillel say it is a forgotten sheaf. And when I came and lectured about these things before Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, he said to me, by the Covenant, these are the words that had been spoken to Moses on Horeb.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: A quarter of rice, an ukla of spices, a pound of vegetables, three qab carob, half a log of wine, a quarter of a log of olive oil, ten nuts, five peaches, two pomegranates, one etrog. What is the reason? (Deut. 26:12) “They shall eat in your gates and be satiated,” give him to satisfy him. Ḥizqiah asked his father: From where do we get all these amounts? He said to them, a pebble supports a tower. Rebbi Ḥananiah was sitting before Rebbi Ilaï, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, until he said to him, is it not depraved to destroy instead of building up?

Rebbi Abba bar Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ilaī: What if they saw him leave the town and enter it again? He said to him, he who gives shall give and he who takes should be afraid for himself.

There, we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom. Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel.

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden. It was stated: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr, in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering, if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Ila and Rebbi Zeїra, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The first amphora follows Rebbi Yose, the second both Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it not disagree with Rebbi Meїr? He said to him, we may say it follows neither Rebbi Meїr nor Rebbi Yose since we find that Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Zeїri: Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] in all cases. I said to him, because he considers suspended [heave] from the words of the Torah. He said to me, do I not explain that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwellings? For we have stated: “From Gentiles’ dwellings one suspends; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, as we have stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Should he not burn it during the morning hours? Explain it if he was lazy and did not burn it [then]. Know that this is so, for he did not state “during the morning hours.” Is that not because he was lazy and did not burn [then]? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it if impurity was created at that time, and you cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon both said the same thing. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.” Could one not burn the two together? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah, coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua! He said to him, these are Tannaïm. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: A quarter [log] of fish sauce in two seah of fish sauce. But the sauce of an impure fish never can save! Rebbi Abbahu said, I computed that close to 200. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya, a quarter [log] of fish sauce in two seah of fish and fish sauce. A case came before Rebbi Joshia and he instructed accordingly.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that if a drink is stinking from the start it is impure. But did we not state: “The fluid oozing out from them Rebbi Eliezer declares pure but the Sages impure”? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages about the waters of the ocean; even if they are stinking the Torah calls them water (Gen. 1:10): “The collection of water He called oceans.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that beet juice does not prepare.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for those made from olives and grapes,” even after it became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’”. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is its measure. But did we not state: “One produces fine flour from wheat as he wants it, he cleans vegetables as he wants it.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he reduces it to its heave. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: Here in years of famine, there in years of plenty.

Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Ammi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery; in addition, the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.

Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Ammi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery; in addition, the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.

Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Ammi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery; in addition, the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.

Rav Ḥisda said, if somebody declared his standing grain ownerless, came back and retook possession, and illegally gave heave, that is heave. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first.

New section. “Grapes and wild grapes when they start to produce sap.” Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Yasa: When they are called wretched grapes. Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagari, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilaї in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if their seeds are visible from the outside.

“Grain when it is in smooth piles.” Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he straightens his heap. But did not Rebbi Jacob ben Sisin state: “When does he start to give heave from his threshing floor? When he removes the pitchfork.” Here, when he intends to smoothe, there if he did not intend to smoothe. It was stated: “He sifts part and gives heave from the sifted part for what is not sifted.” Rebbi Ila said, for this is the way of householders to bring it into their houses. What is the reason? (Is. 30:24) “The bulls and young donkeys which work the soil will eat sour mix.” If he sifted [grain] dedicated to the Temple and then redeemed it; since he was able to eat from it as a snack and now he cannot eat, it is as if he did it with the permission of the Temple and he is obligated. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Did we not state, “if he took out and cleaned what was dedicated to the Temple, he is free?” Rebbi Yudan said, there it is not impossible for him not to preserve or not to cook a long time. But here it is impossible for him not to smooth it, as Rebbi Ila said, the bulls and young donkeys, etc.

“Grain when it is in smooth piles.” Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he straightens his heap. But did not Rebbi Jacob ben Sisin state: “When does he start to give heave from his threshing floor? When he removes the pitchfork.” Here, when he intends to smoothe, there if he did not intend to smoothe. It was stated: “He sifts part and gives heave from the sifted part for what is not sifted.” Rebbi Ila said, for this is the way of householders to bring it into their houses. What is the reason? (Is. 30:24) “The bulls and young donkeys which work the soil will eat sour mix.” If he sifted [grain] dedicated to the Temple and then redeemed it; since he was able to eat from it as a snack and now he cannot eat, it is as if he did it with the permission of the Temple and he is obligated. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Did we not state, “if he took out and cleaned what was dedicated to the Temple, he is free?” Rebbi Yudan said, there it is not impossible for him not to preserve or not to cook a long time. But here it is impossible for him not to smooth it, as Rebbi Ila said, the bulls and young donkeys, etc.

We have stated: “But he collects from under the sieve and eats.” Rav Ḥisda said, because it misses the action of the wind. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: It misses rest. But did we not state: “Wine after he cleaned it?” For him who says because it misses rest [it is understandable]. For him who says because it misses the action of the wind, it still misses [removal of] its yeast. Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidul objected: Did we not state: “Oil after it descended into the barrel?” For him who says because it misses rest [it is understandable]. For him who says because it misses the action of the wind, it still misses clearing up.

Rebbi Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah brought the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Ilaї saw them and said, look what the difference is between you and the earlier generations. Rebbi Aqiba bought three different kinds for a peruṭah in order to tithe every kind separately but you bring the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs! Why over the back of the roofs, even if he brings them into his courtyard with the intention to eat them on the roof! Is that not the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Because of Rebbi who was with him. An old man saw them and said to them, would you give me some of these? They said, yes. He said to them, you did not give to your father in Heaven, only to me!

Rebbi Jeremiah said, who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument a minore ad majus: If it is permitted to sell Sabbatical produce with which one may not liquidate one’s debts, it is logical that it should be permitted to sell Second Tithe since with it one may liquidate one’s debts. We find that one may liquidate one’s debts with Second Tithe, following what we stated: “If he took from him tithe worth one tetradrachma and did not come to exchange it until it was worth two.” Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference since from the start the value of Second Tithe was due. If he had owed before, it would be an argument. Rebbi Yudan said, a Mishnah said that it is forbidden to sell it, as we stated there: “If intentional, he married, if in error, he did not marry.” If you say that he may sell it, he should be able to use it for marriage but anything he may not sell he may not use for marriage. But did we not state: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. Otherwise, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Ila, everybody agrees because of these arguments. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, everybody agrees that all should need the enclosures.

“ How does one not take it as a pledge? He who enters another’s house to take a pledge should not take his debtor’s Second Tithe as pledge.” It was stated: “One does not give it as a deposit and he should not give it to a grocer to receive food in its value.” If one transgressed and took as pledge, trangressed and gave as deposit? It shall be as the following: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be restituted.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rebbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rebbi.

HALAKHAH: How far? That he could give heave from the best. If he wants to bring a fig cake, we shall say that if it was from Qe‘ila he may bring it, from Bostra he cannot bring it.

HALAKHAH: “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan understood it from the following: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

Rebbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads but even if they open to the same public road will Rebbi Yose agree, for Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice?

Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Immi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery because the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.

Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Immi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery because the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.

Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Immi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery because the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.

As it was stated: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally it may not be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. When Rav was instructing his own group he said following Rebbi Meïr; in public he instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he explained to us following Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, in any case where for an intentional sin one is liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin for a purification offering, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both to him and to others. In any case where for an intentional sin one is not liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin no purification offering is due, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result unintentional it may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, what do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Rav Huna in the name of Rav, and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Since you are saying, it is permitted to move it, similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it presses.”

Rebbi Abba bat Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is forbidden to move a tarkos. Rebbi Immi instructed: it is permitted. Rebbi Jeremiah saw them moving it at the great assembly and did not object to them. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, up to three it is a chair, more than this a ladder. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who permits follows Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Since you are saying, it is permitted to move it, similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any vessel except a carriage because it presses.”

Cahana asked Rav, may one go out with twisted chains? He told them, does one say, it is forbidden for a man to go out with his belt? Rav Huna instructed the wife of the Head of the Diaspora to put golden felt on the wig. Rebbi Joḥanan instructed these of the House of Con to put a patch with pearls on the jacket. Rebbi Ila said, anything connected to a garment is like the garment. And we have stated, one may go out with bells on his garment but one may not go out with bells around his neck. There are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are subject to impurity, and there are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are not subject to impurity. He who said, in both cases they are subject to impurity, if he made clappers for them, but he who said, in both cases they are not subject to impurity, if he did not make clappers for them. Even if he did make clappers for them they should be pure! Did not Rebbi Abbahu, Simeon bar Abba say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Bells on a crib. Two Amoraim. One said he can move it to and fro, only he should make no sound. But the other said, if he made a sound it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. There, although they are not made for sound on the Sabbath they are made for sound on weekdays; but here if they are not made for sound either on the Sabbath or weekdays, why did he make clappers for them?

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Rav Naḥman, it is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s, as we have stated there: “A metal ring with a coral seal is impure; a coral ring with a metal seal is pure.” It was stated about this: “Rebbi Neḥemiah switches. And so did Rebbi Neḥemiah say, for a ring after its seal, for a ladder after its steps, for a קוֹלָב after what fixes it, for a (lock) [yoke] after its strips.” Rebbi Ila said, explain it according to everybody if she took it out in order to seal with it. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: if it was made for dual purpose, if she brought it out in order to seal one is liable, if she brought it out as jewelry one is not liable even for the seal for also the seal becomes an accessory of jewelry.

HALAKHAH: “Boys go out with knots,” knots of madder. “And princes with bells.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, with bells around their necks. What means “and so may everybody”? Whether children of the poor or children of the rich. Rebbi Ila said, with bells on his clothing. What means “and so may everybody”? Whether adult or child. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Zeˋira: A person may go out with bells on his clothing but he may not go out with bells around his neck. But here about adults and there about the young.

Germania the slave of Rebbi Jehudah Nesia went out and wanted to accompany Rebbi Ila. There came a rabid dog which wanted to attack Rebbi Ila. The German shouted at him, he left him and pursued the other. He recited about him, I shall give a man in your stead.

Germania the slave of Rebbi Jehudah Nesia went out and wanted to accompany Rebbi Ila. There came a rabid dog which wanted to attack Rebbi Ila. The German shouted at him, he left him and pursued the other. He recited about him, I shall give a man in your stead.

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together. Of these, to obligate for derivatives. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken; he is liable only once. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them. Like prostration to obligate for partial action. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written, if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, it is written: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that he did not concede to him. (It was) [Now] Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to] him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated, “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that he did not concede to him. (It was) [Now] Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to] him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated, “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him.

Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. Therefore, in the case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work even Rebbi Eliezer should agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he is liable only once. But then Rebbi Aqiba should have objected, is there not the case of intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work, where there are many ramifications or many purification sacrifices and you are instructing that he is liable only once! Since he did not object in this way it implies that one case is like the other case.

Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding works. Can anybody become liable intentionally? You superimpose the error regarding works over the intent regarding the Sabbath. Similarly, in case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work you superimpose the error regarding the Sabbath over the intent regarding works to hold him liable for each single occurrence. Does Rebbi Eliezer not accept one, to obligate for each one separately? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: An adult who was abducted among Gentiles is liable for each single one.

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

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

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” And (did we not state) [was it not stated], in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose (in the name of Rebbi Ila) [ben Rebbi Abun]: Grinding as a category was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi (Yose) [Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. (It was stated.) Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

“And who tears down,” but only for a need. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who blows a glass vessel is liable because of building. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There are things which are close but far away; and there are things which are far away but close. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form, all are because of building. He who selects, who filters, and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable. And why was handing over not stated with them? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: In addition, there is handing over. And why was it not stated with them? All categories of work involve one, and this one two. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

It was stated: “A smooth stone the size of an olive, or a walnut, or an egg, he may take and cleanse his feet with it. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: up to a full hand.” Rav Jehudah said, Boetius ben Zenon was sitting and repeating before Rebbi; he said, so we are saying, it is necessary that he sit down and take it in his hand. He told him, everything is permitted except what is formed like a small sack. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: it may be like the base of a small mortar of a spice dealer. Rebbi Yose said, they only said, of a spice. But not of spices. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A pebble on which grasses grew he may take and cleanse his feet with it. But if he plucks off from it on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: It is forbidden to cleanse oneself with any potsherd. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only potsherds but even handles of amphoras, and anything which was brought into the fire and came out again. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, a pebble which had been used by another person and water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah one may not use to cleanse himself. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to cleanse himself with water which a dog licked. And it was stated so: One cleans himself neither with a dog’s mouth, nor in presence of a dog, nor with water which the dog had licked off, nor with water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah. And if somebody washes in the bath house or washes in a bathtub, it is bad for hemorrhoids. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Five things were said about a reed blade: One does not use it to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to clean teeth with it, nor does one use it to cut meat on the table, nor does one cleanse himself, because an evil spirit resides on it.

It was stated: “A smooth stone the size of an olive, or a walnut, or an egg, he may take and cleanse his feet with it. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: up to a full hand.” Rav Jehudah said, Boetius ben Zenon was sitting and repeating before Rebbi; he said, so we are saying, it is necessary that he sit down and take it in his hand. He told him, everything is permitted except what is formed like a small sack. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: it may be like the base of a small mortar of a spice dealer. Rebbi Yose said, they only said, of a spice. But not of spices. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A pebble on which grasses grew he may take and cleanse his feet with it. But if he plucks off from it on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: It is forbidden to cleanse oneself with any potsherd. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only potsherds but even handles of amphoras, and anything which was brought into the fire and came out again. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, a pebble which had been used by another person and water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah one may not use to cleanse himself. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to cleanse himself with water which a dog licked. And it was stated so: One cleans himself neither with a dog’s mouth, nor in presence of a dog, nor with water which the dog had licked off, nor with water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah. And if somebody washes in the bath house or washes in a bathtub, it is bad for hemorrhoids. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Five things were said about a reed blade: One does not use it to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to clean teeth with it, nor does one use it to cut meat on the table, nor does one cleanse himself, because an evil spirit resides on it.

HALAKHAH: 5. This is difficult. May cumin and salt combine? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: they taught this about sweeteners.

HALAKHAH: 6. It was stated: Also bad smell in any amount. Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable. “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable. “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

Is there no difference, whether according to his opinion or that of the rabbis, only if it came to rest from a public domain into a private domain? In Rebbi’s opinion, even if it did not come to rest; in the rabbis’ opinion, only if it came to rest. For Rebbi Abba bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Rebbi declared liable only for a private domain which was roofed. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies, even if it was not roofed, for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Ila said, about the Sabbath it is written: You shall not do any work; it may make itself automatically. But here he shall deliver into her hand, into her domain.

Samuel said, they taught this only about lower than ten [hand-breadths]. Therefore higher than ten [hand-breadths] it is forbidden. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar implied that even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it is permitted. For Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Aqiba learned from the carts; and were the carts not higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Some Tannaim state “how is this”; some do not state “how is this”. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion there is “how is this”, in Samuels’s opinion there is no “how is this”.

HALAKHAH: 2. Rav said, here there is no “not liable” but “permitted”. In Rav’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is permitted. In Samuel’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is forbidden. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: on condition that the public domain surround it from all sides. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even from one side. From these carts. Were the carts not higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Maisha: only by two persons. Everywhere you are saying, two persons acting together are not liable, but here you are saying, two persons acting together are liable. There is a difference, because this was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting. What was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting? Two carts one parallel to the other in the public domain. They were handing the planks from one to the other but not throwing. Bar Qappara stated, not to treat the planks with contempt.

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

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

“Because the latter are not prepared,” and they are used only connected to the ground. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Originally all implements could be taken on the Sabbath. Because they were suspected of desecrating holidays and Sabbaths as it is written, at that time I saw in Jehudah that they were working wine presses on the Sabbath … and loading on donkeys, etc., they forbade them everything. After they were fenced in they continued to permit to them until they permitted them everything except the big saw and the blade of the plough. Rebbi Yose said, also the engraver’s stylo. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also the anchor.” “A mortar, if there is garlic in it one may take it, otherwise one may not take it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it is a small mortar used at table then it is like a bowl and one moves it on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they formulated before implements were permitted.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door. Rebbi Jeremiah said this before Rebbi Zeˋira, who told him, what do you have in your hand? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis here follow their opinion and the rabbis there follow their opinion. Since the rabbis there are saying, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them; they are those who say, it is not so. But the rabbis here who are saying, a hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door, they are those who say, it is so.

If a wall on one side is extended and on the other side is shortened. Cahana said, he puts the beam obliquely and uses it obliquely. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Cahana: he puts the beam in the diagonal and uses in the diagonal, but only on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten? (From) Rebbi Yose [said], Rav Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it, on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits]? [Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits].] You conclude to say, what was problematic for the one was obvious for the other [and what was problematic for the other was obvious for the one].

“If the courtyards made eruvin but did not participate in the alley.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. Everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan and in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even though Rebbi Meïr says that he may cede rights he agrees that if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eruv, that he may rely on his participation. Who holds “by an eruv and by participation,” not Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. He told him, why do you make us forget the practices of eruvin? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila; it should be like one of them. For one of them said, maybe he comes to a courtyard which does not need participation. Which is a courtyard which does not need participation? That is the customary courtyard. He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will infer to say that maybe an eruv is valid without participation? But no eruv is valid without participation. And the other one will say, maybe he comes to a courtyard which already participated. He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will neither make an eruv nor participate.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ila, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but the second both following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Yose? He told him, if not following Rebbi Yose, we may say not following Rebbi Meïr since we find that Rebbi Yose is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Meïr is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. I asked him, even in a case where it is suspended by word of the Torah? He told me, if I explain it that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwelling, what do you have in your hand? It was stated: “For Gentiles’ dwelling one suspends, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Rebbi Meïr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, and so it was stated: “Suspended [and] impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Should he not burn in the morning? Explain it that he was lazy and did not burn. You should know that this is so, since it was stated “impure”. Not because he was lazy and did not burn? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the impurity came to it at that moment and one cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals. He told him, after it was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

There, we have stated: “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

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

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

Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs stated: The table, the candelabrum, the altars, and the gobelins obstruct the sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the sacrifice is only obstructed by the wash basin and its base. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, everywhere “opposite” is written it is obstructive, “on the side” is not obstructive, but Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “on the side” is obstructive, and Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “putting” is obstructive. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, here for service inside, there for service outside.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagari said before Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The reason of this Tanna: But if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered. Why does the verse say, impure? But even impure for this denomination. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, but if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered; anything which could be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place does not effect substitution. This excludes the female of a bird which even though it cannot be sacrificed here is fit to be sacrificed at another place. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Are there not the animals used for active or passive bestiality, which can be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place, and they effect substitution? He said to them, also I did speak only about really impure ones. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise?

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

“Incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful. It is said here “remembrance” and it is said there, “remembrance”. Since “remembrance” there means a full fistful, so “remembrance” here must mean a full fistful. Since “remembrance” there means two fistfuls, does “remembrance” here mean two fistfuls? Rebbi La said, they inferred fistfuls only from the shew bread. Since there a deficient fistful is disqualified, also here a deficient fistful is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, the word of Rebbi Ila implies that one who volunteers a flour offering brings it according to the High Priest’s fistful. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: even according to the owner’s fistful.

Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed. We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there, “if the thatching was three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” But a house is completely enclosed, a sukkah is not completely enclosed. If a porch was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of] Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. Up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the thatching; from twenty cubits and higher he sits in the shade of the walls. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if you are saying, if it is put higher than twenty cubits on the walls. But if it was put lower than twenty cubits inside the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said to him, in your opinion, since you are saying that it is depending on the walls, it should state that “a sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits on the walls is disqualified.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table. But if it holds more it is qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia, only if its walls do not reach up all the way, but if its walls reach up all the way it is qualified. But does not a baraita disagree? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena in Lydda was higher than twenty cubits and the Sages were coming and going there and nobody was saying a word. They said to him, because she was a woman, and a woman is not obligated. He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons?” Could you say that the sukkah of Queen Helena only held a person’s head, most of his body, and his table? But it must be that the walls do not reach up all the way. What Rebbi Josia said is reasonable and the baraita does not disagree, since it is the way of rich people to make their walls airy so that cool air may enter.

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.

“It happened that Rebbi Ilai went to Rebbi Eliezer in Lydda. He said to him, are you not one of those who rest on the holiday? Did they not say that it is not praiseworthy for a scholar to abandon his house on the holiday and go somewhere else.” As the following: Rebbi Ze`ira went to a circumcision of Rebbi Ila and did not accept any food. If it was because he never ate anything before the end of musaf prayers, or we do not know whether it was because it is not praiseworthy for a scholar to abandon his house on the holiday [and go somewhere else; this] we do not know.

Rebbi Eleazar said, eating may be casual, sleep cannot be casual. The colleagues say, because a person is enveloped in his sleep. Rebbi Ila said, because a person may sleep a little and it is enough. What is the difference between them? If he let another person control his sleep. In the opinion of the (rabbis) [colleagues] it is permitted, in Rebbi Ila’s opinion forbidden.

Rebbi Eleazar said, eating may be casual, sleep cannot be casual. The colleagues say, because a person is enveloped in his sleep. Rebbi Ila said, because a person may sleep a little and it is enough. What is the difference between them? If he let another person control his sleep. In the opinion of the (rabbis) [colleagues] it is permitted, in Rebbi Ila’s opinion forbidden.

From where did the House of Hillel merit that practice should be fixed following their words? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, because they quoted the words of the House of Shammai before their own words. Not only that, but if they were convinced by the words of the House of Shammai they changed their opinions. Rebbi Simon bar Zeved objected before Rebbi Ila: Or could we say that the Tanna saw that they were older and quoted them first? But did we not state, “it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran”? We could have said, our elders and your elders. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: Since the House of Shammai dismissed the House of Hillel, this implies that practice follows their words.

The colleagues say, the words of Rebbi Yose are that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. Rebbi Yose told them, it is not from this but as Rebbi Ila said and as is stated there: “This was the usage in Jerusalem, a person goes to the synagogue with his lulav in his hand, goes to visit the sick with his lulav in his hand. he recites the shema` and prays with his lulav in his hand. To lift his hands or to read in the Torah, he hands it to another person. If he put it down on the floor it is forbidden to move it.” Rebbi Abun said, this implies that it is forbidden for usufruct. It was stated: One moves fragrant wood to let a sick person smell it on the Sabbath. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, one may wave the myrtle branch for a sick person on the Sabbath. Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for unleavened bread? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision; this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for unleavened bread.

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

They wanted to say that the large {hole} was for water, the small one for wine, for Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: A hole which does not let pass water passes wine, what does not let pass wine passes oil, does not let pass oil passes honey. And even if you say it is the other way around, is that not Rebbi Jehudah’s? And Rebbi Jehudah said, a log he was pouring all eight days. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he preceded them before the sacrifice, what? If he poured in the night, what? If he did not pour today may he pour the next day? He said to him, let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: And its libations, the same for libations of water as for libations of wine. This implies that if he preceded them before the sacrifice, it is qualified. If he poured in the night, it is qualified. If he did not pour today he may not pour the next day, because if the day passed, its sacrifice passed.

They asked before Rebbi Ila, so far for a commandment. From where a prohibition? The verse says, you shall come there and bring there. Where do we hold? If for a commandment, it already had been said. But if it cannot refer to a commandment, refer it to a prohibition. *Does one transgress about a Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time? It was found stated, about Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time one transgresses. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that you should not say that since if it was lost and found after the owner was exculpated, its body is brought as well-being offering, therefore it was a question whether one transgresses about a Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time. They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does one transgress between one holiday and the next? Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated, a holiday offering which was not brought on the first shall be brought on the second; does one permit him to transgress? In addition from the following: You shall do, a positive commandment. Guard, a prohibition. Does he not transgress a positive commandment and a prohibition only after three holidays? Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: If one said, I take upon me the obligation to bring an elevation offering on Monday. Once Monday has passed and he did not bring it, he transgresses. If its year is complete you cast down the last day and he transgresses every single day. If it is so, if three holidays have passed you cast down the last holiday and he transgresses every single holiday. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if its year was completed on Pentecost, is it possible to say it is not qualified and he transgresses?

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

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.

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday falls on a Friday,” etc. It is written, what you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. Rebbi Eliezer says, one bakes on the basis of the baked, and one cooks on the basis of the cooked. Rebbi Joshua says, one bakes and cooks on the basis of the cooked. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? What you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? What you will bake and what you will cook cook. Rebbi Eliezer said, this follows him who said that the Sabbath was given at Mara. But following him who said that at Alush the Sabbath was given, they are at Alush and the warning is given at Alush. Come and look, from the Torah it is forbidden and an eruv tavshilin makes it permitted? Rebbi Abbahu said, it would be logical that one should bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. If you would say so, one would bake and cook on the holiday for a weekday. Come and look, one makes the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath, but one does not bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, why may one make the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath? Since one may make the beds on Friday night for the Sabbath day. Could one bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath? One may not bake and cook on the night of the Sabbath for the Sabbath day.