immi

The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi disagrees since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi read psalms afterwards. But have we not stated: One does not say words after Emet Weyaẓiv? He explains that as relating to Emet Weyaẓiv of the morning prayers, since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering, immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, immediately after redemption comes prayer. Immediately after leaning comes slaughtering: “He shall lean … he shall slaughter” (Lev. 1:4–5). Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.” Immediately after redemption comes prayer, (Ps. 19:15) “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill” and it is written after that (Ps. 20:2) “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: For anyone who immediately slaughters after leaning, no disqualification will appear regarding his sacrifice. For anyone who immediately pronounces the benediction after washing his hands, Satan will not find anything to accuse about at that meal. For anyone who immediately prays after mentioning redemption, Satan will not find anything to accuse him of the entire day. Rebbi Zeïra said, I am used to immediately pray after mentioning redemption and I was conscripted to forced labor, to bring myrrh to the Palace. They said to him: our teacher, that is an honor. There are people who pay money to see the inside of the Palace. Rebbi Immi said: Anyone who does not immediately pray after mentioning redemption, whom is he to be likened to? To an acquaintance of the king who comes from afar to the king’s door. When the king comes to see what he wants, he finds that the person left. Hence, the king also leaves.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Neḥemiah and the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Neḥemiah said: “Who produced bread from the earth.” But the rabbis say, “Who produces bread from the earth.” This disagreement is like that disagreement: לפת, Rebbi Ḥinena bar Isaac and Rebbi Samuel bar Immi; one said “lefet, was it not bread?” and the other one said “lefet, will it not be bread”? (Ps. 72:16) “There will be a piece of flour on the land, on mountain tops.” Rebbi Jeremiah recited before Rebbi Zeïra “Who produced bread from the earth” and the latter praised him. Following Rebbi Neḥemiah? Not to amalgamate the letters! If it is so, הַמִּין הָאָרֶץ? In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥemiah, “He Who created the fruit of the vine”; in the opinion of the rabbis “Who creates the fruit of the vine.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Immi asked in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Think of it, if there were only one ear! Before he cut, there was no obligation; after he cut, there will be nothing left! Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it if there was one stalk with five ears!

The sister of Rebbi Gurin wrote her possessions over to her brother. His older brother came, made peace with her, and she wrote her possessions over to him. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said: So says Rebbi Joḥanan, one may change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said, but does Rebbi Joḥanan not agree that if it was written “from today” one may not change his mind? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Rebbi Illaï came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Then Rebbi Immi remembered, and the judgement was reversed.

The sister of Rebbi Gurin wrote her possessions over to her brother. His older brother came, made peace with her, and she wrote her possessions over to him. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said: So says Rebbi Joḥanan, one may change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said, but does Rebbi Joḥanan not agree that if it was written “from today” one may not change his mind? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Rebbi Illaï came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not change his mind. Then Rebbi Immi remembered, and the judgement was reversed.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say that property abandoned to the poor is abandoned. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that it is free from tithes because property abandoned by a court order is abandoned. It is written (Ezra 10:8): “Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction.” From where that it is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa understood it from the following: One intercalates years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Half a bunch of grapes are dropped berries. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Half a bunch of grapes or an entire bunch are dropped berries. But did we not state: “Two berries are dropped berries?” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: If he cuts and deposits them under the vine.

HALAKHAH: Everybody agrees that he who sells ten bunches to somebody else may not touch them. Everybody agrees in a partnership that just as he thins out his, so he thins out that of his partner. Rebbi Jehudah considers him to be a partner, Rebbi Meïr considers him to be a seller. Rebbi Immi said to him: Think about it, if a wild animal ate it, if you consider him a partner he is required to pay him!

There, we have stated: “Heave, the heave of the tithe, and the heave of the tithe of demay.” And here you say so! Rebbi Zeïra said, there we have stated heave of the tithe of demay but here Second Tithe of demay. Rebbi Immi said, the Mishnah does not stop to deal with the heave of the tithe of demay. What is that? There it is Rebbi Meïr, but here the rabbis. Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of the rabbis: It would have been logical that for the heave of the tithe of demay one would not have to add a fifth; why did they say that one has to add a fifth? Because of a fence for it, for if you tell him that he does not have to add, he will not treat it as holy. It would have been logical that for the Second Tithe of demay one would have to add a fifth; why did they say that one does not have to add a fifth? Because of a fence for it, for if you tell him that he has to add, he will not separate it at all.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi La: Why demay and not also what is certain, why a little bit, maybe the greater part? Did we not state: One does not bring the heave from the threshing floor to town, nor from the prairie to cultivated land, except in a place where [an animal] would drag it away; in that case he brings it and takes money from the tribe. He said to him, is it not a commandment to return a find? Rebbi Yose said, it is a commandment to return a find in small matters; it is not a commandment to return in large matters, except if it is certain; it is not a commandment to return demay since we have stated: “one may destroy a small part of it on the road”. So far, if he had no money in hand. If he had money in hand? Rebbi Neḥumai, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, my father had money in a double sack and he did not redeem. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba holds with Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Immi.

Rebbi Mana said, what you enumerate was earlier. But now there [are other towns that were held by Israel and they are forbidden. “ These are the towns forbidden in district] Susita: Al ‘Awaniš, Eyn Tara‘, the heights of Barin, the spring Ya‘riṭ, Kefar Yaḥrib, Nab, Ḥasfin, and Kefar Ẓemaḥ. Rebbi permitted Kefar Ẓemaḥ.” Rebbi Immi asked: Are these not of the taxpayers? Rebbi Immi is of the opinion that taxpayers count as if they were conquered.

Rebbi Mana said, what you enumerate was earlier. But now there [are other towns that were held by Israel and they are forbidden. “ These are the towns forbidden in district] Susita: Al ‘Awaniš, Eyn Tara‘, the heights of Barin, the spring Ya‘riṭ, Kefar Yaḥrib, Nab, Ḥasfin, and Kefar Ẓemaḥ. Rebbi permitted Kefar Ẓemaḥ.” Rebbi Immi asked: Are these not of the taxpayers? Rebbi Immi is of the opinion that taxpayers count as if they were conquered.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

So far a Gentile; a Samaritan? Let us hear from the following: “He who gives a field to a Gentile sharecropper, a Samaritan, or somebody who is not trusted with tithes, before they come to the time of tithes he does not have to tithe for him; after they come to the time of tithes he has to tithe for him.” That is, at a place where Jews are present. At a place where no Jews are available? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simon had fields at King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him: Let them lie fallow, but do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it to him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is of the opinion that a place where no Jews are available has the status of Syria. For Syria, we hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai descended into Homs. The family Astor asked him: Since no Jews are available here, we lease to Gentiles; do we have to tithe for them? He sent and asked Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Zeïra asked Rebbi Immi, who told him that they did not have to tithe. From this you hear that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose. Also from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Abbahu, said my father had a case; he sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they taught him that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose; hence, as far as tithing for them is concerned, they do not tithe for them.

So far a Gentile; a Samaritan? Let us hear from the following: “He who gives a field to a Gentile sharecropper, a Samaritan, or somebody who is not trusted with tithes, before they come to the time of tithes he does not have to tithe for him; after they come to the time of tithes he has to tithe for him.” That is, at a place where Jews are present. At a place where no Jews are available? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simon had fields at King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him: Let them lie fallow, but do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it to him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is of the opinion that a place where no Jews are available has the status of Syria. For Syria, we hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai descended into Homs. The family Astor asked him: Since no Jews are available here, we lease to Gentiles; do we have to tithe for them? He sent and asked Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Zeïra asked Rebbi Immi, who told him that they did not have to tithe. From this you hear that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose. Also from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Abbahu, said my father had a case; he sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they taught him that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose; hence, as far as tithing for them is concerned, they do not tithe for them.

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, did we not state: “If it had a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three at each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle.” Should we not state, ‘six in the middle?’ Explain it if the walls diminish six. If the walls diminish six, is it that about which we stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle?” We upheld it, but we do not know whether the colleagues upheld it or Rebbi Immi did; it refers to the beginning. And if it refers to the beginning, it is that about which Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, 18.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, did we not state: “If it had a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three at each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle.” Should we not state, ‘six in the middle?’ Explain it if the walls diminish six. If the walls diminish six, is it that about which we stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle?” We upheld it, but we do not know whether the colleagues upheld it or Rebbi Immi did; it refers to the beginning. And if it refers to the beginning, it is that about which Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, 18.

Rebbi Nassa asked: Is it not reasonable that, if the top of the surrounding wall is two hand-breadths wide, one is permitted to sow on it two kinds? Rebbi Nassa asked: If he drew a string in the middle, sowed in half of it, how far can he draw it? From what Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi said, “explain it if the walls diminish six,” that means that it may be even less than that. Let us hear from the following: “In depressions that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” That means, down to one hand-breadth. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon from Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They taught “leaning towards a dry spot”.

“If it shrank it is in order.” Rebbi Immi said, that means for the seeds that were already on it; hence, it is forbidden to sow anew. If one transgressed and sowed, since the earlier ones are permitted, so are the new ones. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is acceptable that if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, what is the status of the later ones? Let us hear from the following: “If the two long boards of a bed were removed and one made two new ones in their stead but did not change the holes, if the new boards were broken, it is impure, if the old ones, it is pure, since all goes after the prior status.” That means, if the later ones were uprooted, the earlier ones are permitted. If the earlier ones were uprooted, the later ones are forbidden.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall, and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated (Mishnah 2:8): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated (Mishnah 3:2): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one said one plants near a fence but not near a border wall, and the other said, a border wall which lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One plants near a fence but not near a border wall, this means Rebbi Immi is the one who said that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence which lost height is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, we also did make both statements, that a border wall that lost height is in order, hence a fence that lost height is invalid. One plants near a fence, as we have stated (Mishnah 2:8): “One does sow close to a fallow field, a plowed field, a stone wall, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” One does not plant near a border wall, as we have stated (Mishnah 3:2): “In a furrow or a water canal that are one hand-breadth deep one may sow three kinds of seeds, one on each side and one in the middle.” If you say that one may sow close to a border wall, he should sow several rows down in the ditch. The colleagues said before Rebbi Samuel bar Abin: Explain it if the top of the border wall was sown. He said to them, if it is so, let him uproot that stem and sow several rows down in the ditch. Is it not better to uproot one stem and sow several rows down in the ditch?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: (Num. 34:2) “The land of Canaan according to its domains.” Domains that the Canaanites invented. Rebbi Immi asked, does one learn from the Canaanites?

It was stated: One does not investigate for a dead person nor in the house of study. Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching where a dead body was present. He did not say anything either to those who left or to those who remained sitting. Rebbi Immi was sitting and teaching when one said to his neighbor: you are wearing kilaim. Rebbi Immi told him: strip yourself of your garment and give it to him.

It was stated: One does not investigate for a dead person nor in the house of study. Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching where a dead body was present. He did not say anything either to those who left or to those who remained sitting. Rebbi Immi was sitting and teaching when one said to his neighbor: you are wearing kilaim. Rebbi Immi told him: strip yourself of your garment and give it to him.

Rebbi Berekhiah asked Rebbi Ḥelbo. Rebbi Ḥelbo asked Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Immi asked Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Ḥanina, some say Rebbi Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even those like Jeroboam ben Nabat and his kind? He said to him, (Deut. 29:22) “Sulphur and salt, conflagration throughout the country.” Rebbi Berekhiah said, one asked the other and we understand nothing from it. What does it mean? Since the Land of Israel was burned, judgment was executed on it. We have stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Seven years was the Land of Israel burned; that is what is written (Dan. 9:27) “The Covenant overtook the public for one week.” What did the Samaritans in it do? Pieces, pieces and it was burned.

Rebbi Berekhiah asked Rebbi Ḥelbo. Rebbi Ḥelbo asked Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Immi asked Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Ḥanina, some say Rebbi Ḥanina asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even those like Jeroboam ben Nabat and his kind? He said to him, (Deut. 29:22) “Sulphur and salt, conflagration throughout the country.” Rebbi Berekhiah said, one asked the other and we understand nothing from it. What does it mean? Since the Land of Israel was burned, judgment was executed on it. We have stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Seven years was the Land of Israel burned; that is what is written (Dan. 9:27) “The Covenant overtook the public for one week.” What did the Samaritans in it do? Pieces, pieces and it was burned.

If somebody improved [his field] and died, may his son sow? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody improved [his field] and died, his son may sow; if he improved [his field] and sold it, it is forbidden to be sown. If [the buyer] transgressed and sowed, it is permitted since they did decide only on a fence that one may live with.

If one walks from Acco to Akhzib, to one’s right hand side and the East the road is pure regarding the land of Gentiles and is subject to tithes and the Sabbatical unless it was known to you to be exempt. To one’s left and the West, the road is impure regarding the land of Gentiles and is free from tithes and the Sabbatical unless it was known to you to be obligated, until one arrives at Akhzib; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, as far as Lablab. What is the status of Acco itself? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Immi: From two actions of Rebbi we learn that Acco is partly of the Land of Israel and partly outside the Land. Rebbi was in Acco when he saw them eating clean bread; he asked them, how did you wash [the grains]? They said to him, a student came here and instructed us that egg water is in order. They thought, we will cook eggs and wash with the cooking water [because] they thought he was talking about cooking water of eggs when he spoke only of egg fluid. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, at that moment they decreed that a student may not render decisions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: If a student gives instructions even according to practice, his instructions are no instructions.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said it is written (Jud. 11:3): “Jephtah fled because of his brothers and dwelled in the land Good,” that is Hippos. Why is it called “Good”, because it frees from tithes. [ Rebbi Immi asked: Are these not of the taxpayers? Rebbi Immi is of the opinion that taxpayers count as if they were conquered.] For Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Joshua sent three orders to the Land of Israel before they entered the Land: Those who want to evacuate should evacuate, those who want to make peace should make peace, those who want to go to war should go to war. The Girgasites evacuated, believed in the Holy One, praised be He, and went to Africa. (2K. 18:32, Is. 36:17) “Until I come and take you to a land like your Land,” that is Africa. The people of Gibeon made peace, (Jos. 10:1) “… that the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel.” Thirty-one kings went to war and fell.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said it is written (Jud. 11:3): “Jephtah fled because of his brothers and dwelled in the land Good,” that is Hippos. Why is it called “Good”, because it frees from tithes. [ Rebbi Immi asked: Are these not of the taxpayers? Rebbi Immi is of the opinion that taxpayers count as if they were conquered.] For Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Joshua sent three orders to the Land of Israel before they entered the Land: Those who want to evacuate should evacuate, those who want to make peace should make peace, those who want to go to war should go to war. The Girgasites evacuated, believed in the Holy One, praised be He, and went to Africa. (2K. 18:32, Is. 36:17) “Until I come and take you to a land like your Land,” that is Africa. The people of Gibeon made peace, (Jos. 10:1) “… that the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel.” Thirty-one kings went to war and fell.

At a place where one may eat but not work, may one rent out one’s animals there? Rebbi Levi from Sennabaris asked Rebbis Isaac and Immi and they forbade it. Rebbi Hoshaia gave money to the Gentiles, not because it would have been forbidden but so as not to leave his animal alone with a Gentile.

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

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

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

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

The Sepphoreans asked Rebbi Immi: May one keep moist with thistles? He said to them, you say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, even leaves of artichokes are permitted. Rebbi Yoshaia said, this is to act on, you may rely on me. Rebbi Yoshaia said, the only food exclusively for animals is green grass; if it was bought to moisturize one may use it to keep moist.

Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The argument of the House of Shammai is that he is like one who says: This shall be heave for itself and what is below it. Rebbi Ḥananiah wanted to say, of its own kind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not accept that. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed and the rest becomes profane, may profane free ṭevel? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, it is simultaneous. When he said “this shall be”, what is in his hand was freed together with the rest. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that is convincing for the Great Heave where one must give heave from what is earmarked. But heave of the tithe must be defined by measure, weight, or count.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor.” From what He commanded the Levites to give heave, from the finished product. That means it is forbidden to give him ears. Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If First Tithe was given from grain ears, it is forbidden to eat a snack from it. What is the reason? (Num. 18:32): “You should not desecrate the holy things of the Children of Israel lest you die.” Will one be whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law? Rebbi Ashian in the name of Rebbi Jonah: A Mishnah states that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law, as we have stated there: “Heave of the tithe is like First Fruits in two respects and like tithe in two respects. One may give it from pure for impure or not earmarked produce, like First Fruits. It makes forbidden from the threshing floor and has a tariff similar to heave.” When can you say “from the threshing floor”, does this not mean after smoothing? That implies that one is not whipped for its ṭevel as biblical law.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with eggs and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “ They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked.” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.

Also if he is in error it is so. If he thought that two se’ot were due but he owed only one, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That [extra] seah which he separated he gives as heave for another place. But did we not state: “but not for another place”? Explain it if he increased the heave. It is acceptable if he increased the heave, but what about tithes? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not state about tithes. But the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must be that, since we say that all the ṭevel is now in his hands, what is the difference between taking from it its own heave or that for another place?

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi had guests. He said to them, if my cooked wine had not been left uncovered, I would have served you some. Rebbi Vivian told him, bring it and I shall drink. He said, he who wants to die should go and die in his own house.

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.

“Even though it was kept to grow it is subject to tithes small or large.” Does this imply that if it was not kept to grow it is not subject to tithes small or large? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To exclude the words of Rabban Gamliel as we have stated there: “Rabban Gamliel says, flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans are subject to tithes.” Rebbi Yasa said, did Rabban Gamliel obligate them because of food? If it were so, what about their greenery? But Rabban Gamliel says, they are important as food, but the rabbis say, they are not important as food. In addition, from what we are stating: “Rebbi Joshua said, I never wanted to tell anybody go, collect flower buds of fenugreek, mustard, and white beans and cook them, to free them from tithes.”

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

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi? Even if he would hold with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, the Sabbath is more powerful since windfall which falls by itself is forbidden. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Even if he would follow Rebbi, since a secure courtyard is more powerful as Rebbi Joḥanan said, buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

They heard before Rebbi Joḥanan that he said to them, practice follows all of them restrictively. Why do they not say it in his name? That not a word of Rebbi Joḥanan should disagree with another word of his. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba, one where one person opens and another one locks it is free; two partners but not two tenants.” What is the difference between a partner and a tenant? Just as a partner may object so a tenant may object! Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah refers to a landlord and his tenant. The landlord may object to the tenant, the tenant may not object to the landlord. About that they heard before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jonah said, Zeïra and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Immi said, the house of Rebbi Yannai instructed that practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba.

They heard before Rebbi Joḥanan that he said to them, practice follows all of them restrictively. Why do they not say it in his name? That not a word of Rebbi Joḥanan should disagree with another word of his. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba, one where one person opens and another one locks it is free; two partners but not two tenants.” What is the difference between a partner and a tenant? Just as a partner may object so a tenant may object! Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah refers to a landlord and his tenant. The landlord may object to the tenant, the tenant may not object to the landlord. About that they heard before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jonah said, Zeïra and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Immi said, the house of Rebbi Yannai instructed that practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba.

HALAKHAH: Fire creates ṭevel, buying creates ṭevel, salt creates ṭevel, heave creates ṭevel, the Sabbath creates ṭevel, a secure courtyard creates ṭevel, but Rebbi Joḥanan said that buying and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, I may peel two by two. It is stated so: “Barley, two are free, three obligated; wheat, three are free, four obligated.” Huna bar Ḥinena and Rav Taḥlifa bar Immi were sitting before Rebbi Eleazar. {Rebbi Jonah said, either all are “bar Immi” but this one “bar Rav Immi” or all are “bar Rav Immi”.} He had [grains] up to the knuckles of his fingers. They were taking from him. He turned his face to the wall and showed them his hand full. It is stated so: Only he should not sift into a reed-basket or into a wide basket. For the Sabbath, up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana: Here, they said for barley, two are free, three obligated; there, you say so? He said to him, there is a difference; here you say that he may put the remainder back. It was stated so: When has this been said, when he is not close to the threshing floor. But when he was close to the threshing floor [he can have] even more since he may put the remainder back.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, I may peel two by two. It is stated so: “Barley, two are free, three obligated; wheat, three are free, four obligated.” Huna bar Ḥinena and Rav Taḥlifa bar Immi were sitting before Rebbi Eleazar. {Rebbi Jonah said, either all are “bar Immi” but this one “bar Rav Immi” or all are “bar Rav Immi”.} He had [grains] up to the knuckles of his fingers. They were taking from him. He turned his face to the wall and showed them his hand full. It is stated so: Only he should not sift into a reed-basket or into a wide basket. For the Sabbath, up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana: Here, they said for barley, two are free, three obligated; there, you say so? He said to him, there is a difference; here you say that he may put the remainder back. It was stated so: When has this been said, when he is not close to the threshing floor. But when he was close to the threshing floor [he can have] even more since he may put the remainder back.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, I may peel two by two. It is stated so: “Barley, two are free, three obligated; wheat, three are free, four obligated.” Huna bar Ḥinena and Rav Taḥlifa bar Immi were sitting before Rebbi Eleazar. {Rebbi Jonah said, either all are “bar Immi” but this one “bar Rav Immi” or all are “bar Rav Immi”.} He had [grains] up to the knuckles of his fingers. They were taking from him. He turned his face to the wall and showed them his hand full. It is stated so: Only he should not sift into a reed-basket or into a wide basket. For the Sabbath, up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana: Here, they said for barley, two are free, three obligated; there, you say so? He said to him, there is a difference; here you say that he may put the remainder back. It was stated so: When has this been said, when he is not close to the threshing floor. But when he was close to the threshing floor [he can have] even more since he may put the remainder back.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, I may peel two by two. It is stated so: “Barley, two are free, three obligated; wheat, three are free, four obligated.” Huna bar Ḥinena and Rav Taḥlifa bar Immi were sitting before Rebbi Eleazar. {Rebbi Jonah said, either all are “bar Immi” but this one “bar Rav Immi” or all are “bar Rav Immi”.} He had [grains] up to the knuckles of his fingers. They were taking from him. He turned his face to the wall and showed them his hand full. It is stated so: Only he should not sift into a reed-basket or into a wide basket. For the Sabbath, up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana: Here, they said for barley, two are free, three obligated; there, you say so? He said to him, there is a difference; here you say that he may put the remainder back. It was stated so: When has this been said, when he is not close to the threshing floor. But when he was close to the threshing floor [he can have] even more since he may put the remainder back.

Or it may follow this: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, grafted, or sank he has to uproot it.” If one did not uproot, what is with its yield? Rebbi Abba [and] Rebbi Immi were sitting in Tyre when a case came before them. Rebbi La taught that the fruits should be thrown away. Rebbi Abba said, I was not counted with them on the upper floor. They said, let us go out and study. They went out and heard Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not make a new restriction. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add to an established practice.

A coin out of circulation which the government will accept, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is like a blank. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A coin of the earlier kings, if it is currently accepted because of its coinage one exchanges, otherwise one does not exchange. A revolutionary coin like that of Bar Koziba one does not exchange. If he had dangerous coins: such a case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, one should carry its yield to the Dead Sea. If one had coins difficult to determine: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi: One exchanges at the value given by the tremissarius. If he wants to spend the coins, he exchanges in his usual way.

Rebbi Immi said, Kama came before Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They said to him, go and pay according to those Tannaїm: “One redeems Second Tithe when it is cheap, not when it is expensive; at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.” So far for large quantities, what about small ones? Even so, at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rav had flax which was blighted. He asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one slaughter a bird and mix its blood with flax seed? He said, a cadaver. Why did he not say to him, a torn one? Because of Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said [the blood of] a torn [bird] must be covered. But did not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: From the time when they came from the diaspora, flax was never blighted and wine never became vinegar; they considered this to be due to the merit of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and his sons. But Rav is like (Is. 46:12): “Listen to me, mighty of heart, who are far from charity!” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, all the world depend on charity but these on strong arms. But the other one said that all good things and consolations come to the world in their merit but they themselves do not profit at all. For example Mar Zuṭra who prayed and fasted for others but for himself he never fasted.

Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that it is forbidden. How is it forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is forbidden from the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, it is forbidden from their words. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis support us, we have stated there: “One may not bring cereal offerings, first fruits, and cereal offerings accompanying animal sacrifices before the ‘omer and if he brought they are invalid.” And Rebbi Joshua the Southerner, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they taught that only for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth. Therefore, on the sixteenth if he transgressed and brought, it is acceptable. If you would say it is forbidden from the Torah there should be no difference; whether he brought on the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth, if he transgressed and brought, it should be invalid. In addition from the following, as Rebbi Zeïra said: Since Rav grew up with the opinions of the sons of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, he holds with them. If you say that it is forbidden from the Torah, he would follow Rebbi Joḥanan!

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A Tiberian qab is obligated for ḥallah. A maker of fried food asked Rebbi Joḥanan: He said, go, make four, and separate. Could he say to him, three and separate? Rebbi Zeïra said, in their places, qabim in their places are measured by quarters. Could he have said to him five minus a little bit? That there should not be any doubt of obligation of ḥallah.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with olives and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “They said to him, the only food fluids called fluid are wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. [One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit?] Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Assi: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he siphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before lumps were formed and he siphoned off, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia followed Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before [Rebbi Immi] and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

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

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

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

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.

If he covered it with ashes and it started burning, what? The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went to his house and instructed: it is permitted. They asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Hoshaia, and Rebbi Ḥanania the colleagues of the rabbis, “it started burning”, in the past. Rebbi Immi passed by; the colleagues were scattered; then they wanted to return to it. Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis said to them, as the case happened so it happened. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisartai said, it is questionable for the future. Rebbi Mana said, I objected before Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaios: If you say for the past, even if he did not cook on it earlier.

If he took it when it still was daylight he may return it when it still is daylight. If he took it after dark he may return if after dark. If he took it when it still was daylight and the day became holy for him? Rebbi Simon [bar Thaddeus] in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If he had put it down on the ground it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: I was serving the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and I brought him hot water from the lower to the upper apartment and returned it to the stove. Rebbi Jeremiah ben Rebbi Simeon said, even from a stove with little heat to a stove with much heat Rebbi Immi said, many times I was sitting before Rebbi Hoshaia but this I never heard from him. Rebbi Zeriqan said to Rebbi Zeˋira, he did not hear from him that it was permitted; therefore it is forbidden.

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.”

A case came before Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac. He sent to ask Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Immi. The latter said to him: Following the words of him who declares impure, it is permitted to go out on it on the Sabbath. Following the words of him who declares pure, it is forbidden to go out on it on the Sabbath. He did not get anything out of him.

HALAKHAH: Ḥanan bar Immi said before (Rebbi) [Rav] Jehudah [in the name of] Menashia bar (Menashe) Jeremiah: But only that a young girl should not go out with an old woman’s nor an old woman with a young girl’s. But did we not state: “Girls go out with threads”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, even wound around her neck. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, there even if she cannot bring (her nose) [a thread similar] to her hair she may leave with it. But here, a young girl should not go out with an old woman’s nor an old woman with a young girl’s.

Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi. One had a toothache and his colleague instructed him; the other one had an earache and his colleague instructed him. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yasa asked Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa’s doctor, how feels Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa’s tooth, and since Rebbi Yasa never said an unnecessary word, it was he who instructed about the tooth.

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects (normally) on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another] place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes] at the end.

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects (normally) on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another] place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes] at the end.

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.

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.

HALAKHAH: 5. Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, it they are tied together with bast. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only if they made an eruv. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. One said, if the distance between them is less than four; but the other said, even if the distance between them is four. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even if they are not ten [hand-breadths] high, it is he who said, if the distance between them is less than four [hand-breadths].

HALAKHAH: 3. Who taught “signs”? Rebbi Yose! What means “of any language”? Even אα. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them upside down or bottom up? They were made similar to reed pens. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them inside out or outside in? The rings did prove. Should one not be concerned that maybe one would exchange? Rebbi Aḥa said, it was written slanted. Why could they not be switched? Rebbi Immi said, You shall erect the Tabernacle according to its ruling. Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.

Those of Rebbi Hoshaia and those of Bar Pazi went and greeted the Patriarch every day. Those of Rebbi Hoshaia went in first and left first. Those of Bar Pazi went and became related by marriage to the patriarchate. They came and wanted to enter first. They went and asked Rebbi Immi who said to them: You shall erect the Tabernacle according to its ruling. Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.

“One may slaughter from containers, one may not slaughter from fishermen’s nets or from traps.” Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Immi: a net of warp. Samuel [said], one may catch with a barrel. Rav said, the sluice of a water canal is permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, those between the plates.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who chews wheat grain of kilaim in a vineyard is whipped; he who chews wheat grain of heave is whipped. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who sips vinegar of heave is whipped; he who sips vinegar of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth; he who chews wheat grain of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth. Rebbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Immi: The rabbis agree with Rebbi about one who sips heave vinegar from his dipping that he pays principal and fifth since vinegar refreshes.

HALAKHAH: In the days of Rebbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rebbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rebbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state, in any case of danger to life one does not say that [the necessary work] be done by women or minors, but [it should be done] even by adults, even by Jewish persons. “It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Shiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due. Immediately there formed a cloud which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander 50 denarii.” The Sages said, there was no need for him to do that. A Nabatean was in the neighborhood of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; the Nabatean wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

HALAKHAH: In the days of Rebbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rebbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rebbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state, in any case of danger to life one does not say that [the necessary work] be done by women or minors, but [it should be done] even by adults, even by Jewish persons. “It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Shiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due. Immediately there formed a cloud which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander 50 denarii.” The Sages said, there was no need for him to do that. A Nabatean was in the neighborhood of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; the Nabatean wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

HALAKHAH: In the days of Rebbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rebbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rebbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state, in any case of danger to life one does not say that [the necessary work] be done by women or minors, but [it should be done] even by adults, even by Jewish persons. “It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Shiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due. Immediately there formed a cloud which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander 50 denarii.” The Sages said, there was no need for him to do that. A Nabatean was in the neighborhood of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; the Nabatean wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

HALAKHAH: In the days of Rebbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rebbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rebbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state, in any case of danger to life one does not say that [the necessary work] be done by women or minors, but [it should be done] even by adults, even by Jewish persons. “It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Shiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due. Immediately there formed a cloud which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander 50 denarii.” The Sages said, there was no need for him to do that. A Nabatean was in the neighborhood of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; the Nabatean wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

HALAKHAH: What is a dragged bolt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rebbi Jehudah . There came Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rebbi Yannai [the father-in-law of] Rebbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rebbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For the knife for circumcision one makes walls of people and brings it. There was a case for Bar Marinus. He asked Rebbi Simon who permitted. He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade. Rebbi Simon was offended. But was it not stated, if one asked a Sage who permitted, one may ask another one who might forbid? Rebbi Yudan said, the case was as follows: He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade, Rebbi Simon who permitted. Rebbi Immi was offended, following what was stated, if one asked a Sage who forbade, one may not ask another one who might permit.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For the knife for circumcision one makes walls of people and brings it. There was a case for Bar Marinus. He asked Rebbi Simon who permitted. He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade. Rebbi Simon was offended. But was it not stated, if one asked a Sage who permitted, one may ask another one who might forbid? Rebbi Yudan said, the case was as follows: He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade, Rebbi Simon who permitted. Rebbi Immi was offended, following what was stated, if one asked a Sage who forbade, one may not ask another one who might permit.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For the knife for circumcision one makes walls of people and brings it. There was a case for Bar Marinus. He asked Rebbi Simon who permitted. He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade. Rebbi Simon was offended. But was it not stated, if one asked a Sage who permitted, one may ask another one who might forbid? Rebbi Yudan said, the case was as follows: He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade, Rebbi Simon who permitted. Rebbi Immi was offended, following what was stated, if one asked a Sage who forbade, one may not ask another one who might permit.

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

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

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: My mother’s sons bore ill-will against me, (etc.) [they made me a guard of the vineyards; my vineyard I did not guard.] What caused me to guard the vineyards? Because my vineyard I did not guard. What caused me to keep two days in Syria? Because I did not keep one day in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. What caused me to separate two ḥallot in Syria? Because I did not separate one ḥallah in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. Rebbi Joḥanan read for them, but I Gave them prescriptions which are not Good[and laws by which they cannot live]. Rebbi Abbahu went to Alexandria and made them carry lulavim on the Sabbath. Rebbi Immi heard it and said, who (feeds them) [brings them] Rebbi Abbahu every year? Rebbi Yose sent and wrote to them: even though we wrote you the order of holidays, do not change the usage of your departed ancestors.