immi

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If somebody sell a cistern, when he handed over its pail [the buyer] took possession. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sell a house, when [the buyer] stored there, he took possession. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi asked, what if he handed over the key? Rebbi Zachariah, son-in-law of Rebbi Levi, said: This is a disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there: “If somebody hand over the key to his house to an ‘am ha’areṣ, the house is pure since he handed to him only the guarding of the key.” It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon declares impure.”

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: Brothers who split? He answered, they divide what they are wearing but not what their sons and daughters are wearing. Rebbi Immi said, if one makes an appraisal for his wife, this is counted for himself and becomes part of the common estate to be distributed. If one makes a necklace for his wife, this is not of the common estate to be distributed if it is to be used on weekdays. But if it is made to be used on holidays, it becomes part of the common estate to be distributed. Rebbi Mana said, holiday dresses are distributed. Sabbath dresses are problematic. It is obvious for Rebbi Abin that both holiday and Sabbath dresses become part of the common estate and are distributed. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What about spherules? He answered, you understand this since you own many spherules. He said to him, they become part of the common estate to be distributed.

HALAKHAH: “Any commandment the father has to fulfill towards his son,” etc. “To circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade, and to marry him to a wife. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to teach him to swim in water.” To circumcise him, “on the eighth day, he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.” “To redeem him,” as is written: “Any firstborn human among your sons you shall redeem.” To teach him Torah, “you shall teach them to your sons.” To teach him a trade, Rebbi Ismael stated: “Choose life,” that is a trade. To marry him to a wife, “make it known to your children and grandchildren.” When do you have children and grandchildren: if you marry off your sons when young. Rebbi Aqiba says, also to swim in water. “That you shall live together with your descendants.” How is this? Is it a commandment or is it obligatory? Let us hear from the following: Bar Tarima came to Rebbi Immi and said to him, talk to my father that he should marry me to a woman. He talked to [the father], but the latter refused. That means it is a commandment, for if it were obligatory, he should have forced him. From where that if his father did not do these things for him, he is required to do them himself? The verse says a human you shall redeem”, “you shall circumcise” them, “you shall study them”, “you shall know” yourself, “that you shall live.”

HALAKHAH: “If a man performs preliminary marriage using ‘orlah, or kilaim of a vineyard,” etc. The first-born of a she-ass, Rebbi Eleazar said, may be used to preliminarily marry a woman; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it may not be used to preliminarily marry a woman. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first-born of a she-ass may be used to preliminarily marry a woman by an argument de minore ad majus. Since you say that a firstling, whose prohibition cannot be lifted during its lifetime, can be used to preliminarily marry a woman, this one, whose prohibition can be lifted during its lifetime, not so much more? What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and redeemed it without the knowledge of its owner. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not redeemed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is redeemed. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar and disagrees with him. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: If somebody steals the first-born of another person’s she-ass, he has to pay double restitution. The end disagrees with him: For even though he has no interest in it now he will later. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman. Rebbi Eleazar explained that, after breaking of [the foal’s] neck. For Rebbi Eleazar said, everybody agrees that after its neck was broken it cannot be redeemed.

Only if it be with his and her agreement. If it was symphōn in his opinion and preliminary marriage in her opinion, Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is symphōn, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it is preliminary marriage. Rebbi Ḥanina was taking up arms against Rebbi Ḥaggai, when Rebbi Hila said to him, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man; this is what Rebbi Ze‘ira said. In the first Adar, Rebbi Hila died. In the second Adar, a case came before Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, and he wanted to rule following Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi told him, Rebbi Hila was wrong when he told you, accept Ḥaggai, for Ḥaggai is a thinking man. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah supports him: “ ‘You married me preliminarily’, and he says, ‘I did not marry you preliminarily.’ He is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” Rebbi Borqai asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same with symphōn? He answered, a symphōn is not doubtful but the rules are identical for symphōn and preliminary marriage.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Reuben owes to Simeon; he transferred [the debt] to Levi. Levi became poor; then Reuben owes nothing to Simeon. That is, if it was not done in bad faith, but if it was done in bad faith, he is obligated.

A person met another in the market place. He said to him, give me the linen which you hold for me. The other responded, give me the denar which you hold for me. The first said, give me the linen and deduct the denar. The case came before Rebbi Mana, who said to him, you admitted that you owe him a denar; he did not admit anything about the linen. Go and give him the denar! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Immi will agree that this is not the law but that he obligated him lest the other deny his liability for the linen.

A person owed another one 100 denars on a document. He sent 50 with an agent and instructed him: If he does not surrender the document, do not give him anything. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, go and give it, for we know. Think of it, Rebbi Immi [might die]! One writes for him a proclamation of the court. If one accepts for another person, the rabbis here say, what he accepted, he accepted for the claimant.

A person owed another one 100 denars on a document. He sent 50 with an agent and instructed him: If he does not surrender the document, do not give him anything. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, go and give it, for we know. Think of it, Rebbi Immi [might die]! One writes for him a proclamation of the court. If one accepts for another person, the rabbis here say, what he accepted, he accepted for the claimant.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to a woman, be preliminarily married to me,” etc. Rav said, we deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth. Rebbi Immi asked (before Rebbi): Do we not always deal with the case that he gave her a peruṭah’s worth? But so it is: “By what I shall speak for you to the government; if he did speak for her to the government for a peruṭah’s worth she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” “By what I shall work for you as a worker; if he did work for her as a worker for a peruṭah’s worth, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Only if she set aside a tetradrachma in her chest for him. With what did he effectuate the preliminary marriage? As we have stated there: “If anything is bartered instead of money, if one party entered in possession, the other is obligated for its trade-in.”

[“The dedicated ones”]. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “ there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “ Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “ You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “ Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “ Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “ David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim. Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “ The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “ May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”

[In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, may a male bastard not marry a female bastard?] Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Jacob from Gebal stated before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Jehudah stated that a male bastard should not marry a female bastard so that bastards should disappear from the world. Similarly, is an Ammonite man forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman? Was that needed for the rabbis? For if Rebbi Jehudah thought that this disqualified converts from any of the Eternal’s congregations, then [the Ammonite] could not marry an Ammonite woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. He could not marry an Egyptian woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. Rebbi Mattania said, one frees a slave girl and marries her to him. Similarly, could an Egyptian man not marry an Egyptian woman? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Benjamin, an Egyptian convert, was a student of Rebbi Aqiba. He said, I am an Egyptian convert married to an Egyptian convert. My son is an Egyptian convert; I shall marry him to an Egyptian convert so that my grandson will be qualified to marry into the congregation. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, my son, it is not so. But you marry him to the daughter of an Egyptian woman convert so that there should be three generations on either side.”

“If I partially set up for damage claims” “as if I had set up for any claims.” This is the pit, as it was stated: If somebody dug a pit ten handbreadths deep and another came and deepened it another handbreadth, the latter is responsible. Rebbi says, one goes after the latter in case of death and after the former for damages. Rebbi Isaac says: So is the baraita: After the latter in case of death and after both of them for damages. If he dug [a pit] ten handbreadths deep and another person came, whitewashed and lined it, both of them are liable. Is he liable because he whitewashed and lined it? When he told him, whitewash this (house) [pit] and acquire it, for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the prevention of damages follows the rules of guarding an acquisition. Rebbi Simon said, explain it when he was digging in the dunes. And it was stated: If each of them dug ten, or each one twenty, or each one a hundred, they are all liable. How deep does it have to be? To be deadly, ten handbreadths. To do damage, anything. Symmachos says, three in depth and four in width. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower says, the length of the animal which falls in. What means the length of the animal which falls in? Whether chicken or camel.

HALAKHAH: “How is the foot notorious,” etc. Does not an animal usually make pebbles ricochet? Rebbi Immi said, if the vessel was held by a human. But if it was lying in the public domain, since it was rightfully lying there and [the animal] was rightfully walking there, he is free. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if there were two roads. On one there are grasses and pebbles, on the other there are no grasses or pebbles. It disregarded the one with no grasses or pebbles and went on that with grasses and pebbles; even though it was in the public domain he is free. Rebbi Eleazar said, in anything not concerning its body, the Sages made no difference between private and public domain in the matter of half damages.

HALAKHAH: “How is the tooth notorious,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the first part. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it refers to all. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it is responsible. And here, he says so? They said, there in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia; but here, in his own name. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s word implies that if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down, is it free [from payment]. Rebbi Joḥanan’s word implies that if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down, it is obligated. Not only if the walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down or one which is lying down kicks the walking one. If a walking [animal] kicks a walking one? Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if a walking [animal] kicks one which is lying down, it is free [from payment]. But in the case of one lying down against one walking or one who was walking against one walking, it is obligated. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: It always is free. What is Rebbi Hoshaia’s reason; is there no “horn” in the public domain? Rav said, if it stood still and ate from heaped produce, [it is obligated]. Since the leniency for “tooth” is in case it ate walking from the standing; the restriction for “horn” is in case the walking animal kicked the one standing still. Ilfai said: If it stood still and ate from heaped produce, it is obligated. Since the leniency for “tooth” is that it ate walking {from the standing} [from the walking]; the restriction for “horn” is in case the walking animal kicked the walking one.

“And similarly, if a cow gored an ox,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: Because it is in doubt; therefore if it were certain, each one would give half? Would I say that a foot of a person is the entire person? Each one would give half? He said to him, the Mishnah deals with a notorious animal. “Its foot is sold to you,” he sold half. “Its second foot is sold to you,” he sold half of the [remaining] half. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all these traditions are Levi’s.

HALAKHAH: “If he robbed an animal and it aged,” etc. Rav Huna said, if he robbed a calf and it became a bull; but if he robbed a bull and it aged, he tells him: Here is your property before you. Samuel said, even if he robbed a calf and it became a bull, he tells him: Here is your property before you. Rav Qarna stated: Even if he robbed a calf and it became a bull before he slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple the value of a calf. The father of Samuel bar Immi said in the name of Rav Jehudah: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody deposits produce with another person,” etc. Rebbi Immi said, they stated this at harvest time. There, they say that these evil rats, if they see plenty of produce, call their friends and eat with them; Rebbi Joḥanan said, they waste, they squander.

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine, on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” “If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it. He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There, the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it, for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants.

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine, on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” “If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it. He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There, the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it, for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants.

HALAKHAH: “The following transgress prohibitions,” etc. “Rebbi Yose said, come and see how blind are the eyes of people who lend on interest. If a person calls another one idolator, or adulterer, or murderer, the other will want to destroy him. But this one pays witnesses and a scribe and tells them, come and testify that I negated the roots [of Judaism]. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, they negate much more than the roots, for they declare the Torah false and Moses an idiot and say, if Moses had known how much we are earning, he would not have written it. Rebbi Aqiba says, interest is difficult since even a favor can be interest. If one told him to buy vegetables on the market for him, even though he gave him the money, this is interest. Rebbi Simeon said, interest is difficult since even greeting can be interest. If he never greeted him but because he took a loan from him he is quick to greet him, this is interest. In this sense, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar used to say, about a person who has money and does not lend it on interest the verse says: ‘his money he did not lend on interest,’ etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi said, we would not know what this tottering was if Salomon had not come and explained: ‘to save those taken to death.’”

HALAKHAH: “One who hires workers,” etc. Rav Hoshaia said, this means that usage supersedes practice. Rebbi Immi said, everywhere the burden of proof is on the claimant except here.

In Tiberias one does not work early or late. In Bet Ma‘on one works early and late. People from Tiberias who climb up to be hired in Bet Ma‘on are hired on the terms of Bet Maon. People from Bet Ma‘on who descend to Tiberias are hired on the terms of Tiberias. But an employer from Tiberias who climbs up to hire workers in Bet Maon can tell them, you should not think that I could not find workers to hire in Tiberias but came up because I heard that you start early and work late. At a place where there is no common usage, Jehudah ben Buni, Rebbi Immi, Rav Jehudah: It is a stipulation of the court that the early part of morning belong to the workers and the late part of evening to the employer. What is the reason? “You make darkness, there is night; the young lions roar for prey; You give to them, they are collecting; the sun shines, they return; man leaves for his work.” (In the evening) [Fridays] both early rising and late going is at the employer’s expense. How much? That he may fill an amphora of water, fry himself a fish, and light the candle.

HALAKHAH: “He who leases a dwelling to another person,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he puts him into it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he told him, a dwelling like this I shall lease to you. But if a person leasing a house wants to sell it? Rebbi Immi said, nobody thinks that this one should die of hunger. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila both say, while certainly it is acquired by him, he has to tell him, let him dwell there until the time of his recall. There came a case before Rebbi Nisi and he did not accept this. Does he disagree? They said, his daughter was given as a pledge to a Roman [and he did not have the wherewhithal to redeem her and Rebbi Assi instructed to sell;] therefore he instructed following Rebbi Immi.

HALAKHAH: “He who leases a dwelling to another person,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he puts him into it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he told him, a dwelling like this I shall lease to you. But if a person leasing a house wants to sell it? Rebbi Immi said, nobody thinks that this one should die of hunger. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila both say, while certainly it is acquired by him, he has to tell him, let him dwell there until the time of his recall. There came a case before Rebbi Nisi and he did not accept this. Does he disagree? They said, his daughter was given as a pledge to a Roman [and he did not have the wherewhithal to redeem her and Rebbi Assi instructed to sell;] therefore he instructed following Rebbi Immi.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someboldy is selling a house to another, when he delivered the key [the buyer] took possession. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody is selling a house to another, when [the buyer] stored produce there, he took possession. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, only produce usually stored. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If somebody is selling a cistern to another, when he handed over its pails [the buyer] took possession. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If somebody sold a flock to another person, when [the seller] delivered the maškokît, [the buyer] took possession. What is maškokît? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. But some say, a pandura. And some say, the bell-wether. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: If somebody is selling a burial chamber to another, when that one buried there one dead it is confirmation of claim for the entire chamber. When he buried three dead in three chambers, it is confirmation of claim for the entire burial cavern.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, only if at the end there be sustenance for twelve months. But the other said, even from the start. If there was not sustenance for all of them for twelve months but they increased it so that how there is sustenance for all of them for twelve months? Rebbi Immi the Babylonian said, let us hear from the following: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property. So much more, if they increased it, they should be able to divide it. If there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months? Rebbi Eudaimon said, let us hear from the following: “If the orphans said, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar, one does not listen to them.” Rav Ḥisda asked: if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months? But this means, only if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months, except for ketubah of the wife, except for the sustenance of the widow, except for the dowries of the daughters, except for loans by document, except for loans by witnesses, except for her burial. The widow and the daughters are of equal rank. The widow and the sons are of equal rank. The widow does not push the daughters aside and the daughters do not push the widow aside. Sometimes the widow pushes the daughters out by means of the sons. Just as the widow pushes out the daughters by means of the sons, should the widow not push out the sons? She might claim her ketubah and lose her right to sustenance.

Rebbi Immi said, if a son was seen separated during his father’s lifetime, what he accumulated, he accumulated for himself. As the following: A person learned to be a barber. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person found something, his brothers share with him? A person became an agent. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person went into robbery, his brothers share with him? A brother of Rebbi Horiana, brother of Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai, wanted to share with him. He told him, brother Alexander, do you not know that our father left us thousands?

Rebbi Immi said, if a son was seen separated during his father’s lifetime, what he accumulated, he accumulated for himself. As the following: A person learned to be a barber. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person found something, his brothers share with him? A person became an agent. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person went into robbery, his brothers share with him? A brother of Rebbi Horiana, brother of Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai, wanted to share with him. He told him, brother Alexander, do you not know that our father left us thousands?

Rebbi Immi said, if a son was seen separated during his father’s lifetime, what he accumulated, he accumulated for himself. As the following: A person learned to be a barber. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person found something, his brothers share with him? A person became an agent. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rebbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person went into robbery, his brothers share with him? A brother of Rebbi Horiana, brother of Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai, wanted to share with him. He told him, brother Alexander, do you not know that our father left us thousands?

HALAKHAH: “If one of co-owning brothers,” etc. It was stated: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned for government service. If this was because of the sharecroppper, he takes because of the sharecropper. If because of the head of household, he takes as head of household. As the following: Rav Naḥman bar Samuel bar Naḥman was appointed to the city council. The case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, if Naḥman who was caught has enough property, it should be given from his property; otherwise it should be given to him from the common estate.

HALAKHAH: “The witnesses to an open document are inside,” etc. From where that a document can be knotted? Rebbi Immi said: “I took the sale document and the sealed”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two [witnesses], the other with three; one in it, the other on its back.

HALAKHAH: “One writes a document of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated, forfaits. Rebbi Abbahu collected, Rebbi Aḥa collected, Rebbi Immi collected. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose did not collect. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not collect forfaits, he agrees if one gave his son to artisans and they mutually agreed to forfaits, he collects.

There, they instruct that practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel except for the guarantor, Sidon, and the last proof. They say, only in the Mishnah. Rebbi Immi bar Qorḥa in the name of Rav: Why did they say, practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? For he pronounced specific practices decided by his court.

Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet had a lawsuit before Rebbi Isaac; the judgment was for Rebbi Benjamin. Rebbi Abba wanted to complain; Rebbi Immi came and taught: If an expert forced his opinion as a judgment, his judgment stands.

Rebbi Zachariah asked before Rebbi Immi: Does one act following that Tanna, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says, sometimes you are empowered to propose a compromise, sometimes you are not empowered to propose a compromise. How is this? Two come before a judge; before he heard their arguments, or after he heard their arguments but does not know how to correctly apply the law, he may tell them, go and work out a compromise. After you heard their arguments and know how to correctly apply the law, you may not propose a compromise, as it is said: One may remove the beginning of a quarrel like water; before it becomes manifest, the quarrel may be abandoned. Before the quarrel became manifest, you are permitted to abandon it; after the quarrel became manifest, you are not permitted to abandon it.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, even compromise needs intelligent decision.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year. You shall sanctify years but not months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What means sanctified? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts with the most senior person. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the (month) [year] one starts from the side. Rebbi Zebida said, but this lower house do not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rebbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rebbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but [he said] “in intercalation”, that the Sages added thirty days to it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rebbi Ḥanina started, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqisch summed up. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi summed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai started, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose summed up. Rebbi Cahana was ordained before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rebbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.

Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He answered him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Abinna asked Rebbi Immi: Are Gentiles required to sanctify the Name? He answered him: I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel. Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar understood it from the following: May the Eternal forgive His servant for this, etc. Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who hides his witnesses behind a wall did not do anything. As in this case: A man happened to prepare food for a meal. He said to another, give me what you owe me. That one answered, yes. When he rose, he told him, I do not owe you anything. He answered, I have witnesses. The other said, I said that only in order not to spoil your food. The case came before Rebbi Immi, who said, this is what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he who hides his witnesses behind a wall did not do anything.

“In civil suits, anybody may argue for credit or debit,” etc. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Even an adulterer and an adulteress? He told him, your patch came off.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? He should over it confess sins, these are intentional sins, their crimes, these are rebellions, their mistakes, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins, he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes, their mistakes. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal, another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside. If he became impure (inside) not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside) not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

HALAKHAH: “You are holding for me a kor of grain;” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Our Mishnah if he sued him for wheat and he admitted barley; but if he sued him for two kinds and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that he is not liable. Rebbi Abbahu said about that of Rebbi Immi: Why did we state, “Rabban Gamliel declares him liable”? It comes to inform you of the power of Rabban Gamliel, how far he declares liable. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only if he claimed wheat and he admitted barley to him, but if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, the words of the Sages are that he is not liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is only if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, but if he sued for wheat and he admitted barley according to everybody he is liable. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A person went to court before Rav: When he claimed from another wheat, barley, and spelt. Rav told him, wait until he charged you with anything he has to charge, and in the end you will swear one oath about everything. Rebbi Abbahu said, so argued Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish against Rebbi Joḥanan: In your opinion, since you say that if he claimed two kinds and he admitted one of them, according to the Sages he is not liable, did we not state “if he claimed vessels and real estate; if he admitted the vessels and denied the real estate, the real estate and denied the vessels”? For vessels about vessels he is liable, not so much more for vessels and real estate? He answered him, to transfer an oath to him by the following Mishnah, “since guaranteed property obligates non-guaranteed property to be sworn about.” This does not even disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But did we not state: “Somebody who sued for amphoras of oil and he admitted to vessels”? How do we hold? If he sued him for vessels and oil, and he admitted one of them, everybody agrees that this refers to the claim. But if he sued him for vessels and he did (not) admit oil, everybody agrees that what he admitted did not refer to the claim. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Samuel: If he sued for vessels full of oil, one said vessels but not oil, the other said oil but not vessels. (Thrown) vessels but not oil. Oil but not vessels? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin formulates it as oil buckets. Can one not ask him? If he was paralyzed.

Rebbi Immi said, those who write, “on condition that I have the right to seize movables,” cannot collect. Rebbi Mana said, if he writes and declares, “even though the Court will not enforce,” he collects.

Rav Hoshaia said before Rebbi Immi in the name of the rabbis there: the oath returned to Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: the oath returned to the parties. He who said, the oath returned to Sinai, it is as if there was no testimony; the burden of proof is on the claimant. He who said, the oath returned to the parties, since that man is suspect and cannot swear for me, get up and pay me.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “Grabbing” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “grabbing” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not comparable to “grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper. “Grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper does not make him liable unless he move it. “Grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper, he is liable from the moment he puts his staff and his bag on it. Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai heard this and said, I am not accepting this, but in any case he is not liable unless he move it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state it in this way? If “grabbing” had not been mentioned for the unpaid keeper as unnecessary, I would have inferred from the recipient of a fee. Since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, it is only logical that an unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, not be liable unless he move it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper since it was unnecessary? To be strict with the recipient of a fee; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, if you say so, you infer about the premise to restrict it. For one could say to him, since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, should not be liable even if he move it. But it must be the following: “Grabbing” should not have been mentioned for the paid keeper as unnecessary, for I would have inferred from the unpaid keeper. Since the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, is not liable unless he move it, the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, becomes liable when he moves it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the recipient of a fee since it was unnecessary? To be strict; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable.

It was stated: In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, if the Gentiles contribute the overseers of charity collect from them and from Jews, and provide for Gentile and Jewish poor, visit Gentile and Jewish sick, console Gentile and Jewish mourners, and bury Gentile and Jewish dead. Also one takes in vessels from Gentiles and Jews for the sake of peaceful coexistence. The weavers asked Rebbi Immi, what about a Gentile wedding feast? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “for the sake of peaceful coexistence.” Rebbi Abba told him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that a Gentile wedding feast is forbidden? Rebbi Immi said, if it had not been for Rebbi Abba we would have come to permit their pagan worship; praise be the Omnipresent Who distanced us from them.

It was stated: In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, if the Gentiles contribute the overseers of charity collect from them and from Jews, and provide for Gentile and Jewish poor, visit Gentile and Jewish sick, console Gentile and Jewish mourners, and bury Gentile and Jewish dead. Also one takes in vessels from Gentiles and Jews for the sake of peaceful coexistence. The weavers asked Rebbi Immi, what about a Gentile wedding feast? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “for the sake of peaceful coexistence.” Rebbi Abba told him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that a Gentile wedding feast is forbidden? Rebbi Immi said, if it had not been for Rebbi Abba we would have come to permit their pagan worship; praise be the Omnipresent Who distanced us from them.

Nowhere does one sell large animals to them.” Why? For a large animal there might be an obligation for a purification offering; for a small animal there can be no obligation for a purification offering. But does he not shear, does he not milk? One says, there it is liable, here he is liable. But if it is sold, is it not the Gentile’s animal? The Babylonian Rebbi Immi in the name of the rabbis there: Sometimes he sells it on trial and returns it after three days, then it turns out that he did do work with the Jew’s animal. Then on trial it should be forbidden, not on trial permitted. One is because of the other.

Rabbi Simon had vineyard planters on King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, let them lie fallow and do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi], may one lease them to a Gentile? Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] permitted it at a place where no Jews could be found as for example Syria. About Syria we can understand from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai went to Homs. Those of Bar Ashtor came and asked him: Since we cannot find Jews we lease to Gentiles;l do we have to tithe through them? He sent and asked Rebbi Ze‘ira. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi (and said to him, rabbi, does one have to tithe?) He told him, one does not have to tithe because of them. From this you (Rebbi Simeon) [understand] to lease following Rebbi Yose. In addition, from what Rebbi Ḥanina (Rebbi Abbahu) the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case. He sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him to lease following Rebbi Yose. Therefore one does not tithe through them.

Rabbi Simon had vineyard planters on King’s Mountain. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, let them lie fallow and do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi], may one lease them to a Gentile? Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] permitted it at a place where no Jews could be found as for example Syria. About Syria we can understand from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai went to Homs. Those of Bar Ashtor came and asked him: Since we cannot find Jews we lease to Gentiles;l do we have to tithe through them? He sent and asked Rebbi Ze‘ira. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi (and said to him, rabbi, does one have to tithe?) He told him, one does not have to tithe because of them. From this you (Rebbi Simeon) [understand] to lease following Rebbi Yose. In addition, from what Rebbi Ḥanina (Rebbi Abbahu) the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case. He sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him to lease following Rebbi Yose. Therefore one does not tithe through them.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, is it not written: On that day they slaughtered of the booty for the Eternal? They explained it, but we do not know whether the colleagues explained it or Rebbi Immi explained it, from previous ones, from booty which was in their hands they sacrificed. But is it not written: The men of Bet Shemesh brought an elevation offering and slaughtered family offerings to the Eternal, oxen? Can we learn anything from the rulers of the Philistines? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they even sacrificed females, the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal. But is it not written, Saul said, they brought them from the Amalekite? One does not learn from Saul; as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Saul was a sycamore shoot. But it is not written, David bought the threshing floor? He bought but did not sacrifice. But is it not written, Arawna said to the king, may the Eternal, your God, have pleasure with you. May he find pleasure with you in prayer. But is it not written, Also from the hand of a stranger you should not bring your God’s bread from any of these? From any of these you do not sacrifice; you buy unblemished ones and sacrifice. What does Rebbi Eliezer do with this? You are buying for money and sacrifice? The one who stated “for money” cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, is it not written: On that day they slaughtered of the booty for the Eternal? They explained it, but we do not know whether the colleagues explained it or Rebbi Immi explained it, from previous ones, from booty which was in their hands they sacrificed. But is it not written: The men of Bet Shemesh brought an elevation offering and slaughtered family offerings to the Eternal, oxen? Can we learn anything from the rulers of the Philistines? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they even sacrificed females, the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal. But is it not written, Saul said, they brought them from the Amalekite? One does not learn from Saul; as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Saul was a sycamore shoot. But it is not written, David bought the threshing floor? He bought but did not sacrifice. But is it not written, Arawna said to the king, may the Eternal, your God, have pleasure with you. May he find pleasure with you in prayer. But is it not written, Also from the hand of a stranger you should not bring your God’s bread from any of these? From any of these you do not sacrifice; you buy unblemished ones and sacrifice. What does Rebbi Eliezer do with this? You are buying for money and sacrifice? The one who stated “for money” cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer.

It was stated: “One sells them neither weapons nor accessories to weapons. One does not sharpen weapons for them.” Explain it in a town of only Gentiles. Is a woman not in danger to be killed? Rebbi Immi said, explain it about a muscular one. Rebbi Abin said, even you may say [about a weak one.] A woman may hide herself and say, I am a Gentile, but a man cannot hide himself and say, he is a Gentile.

HALAKHAH: “One may be healed from the healing of property,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “healing of property,” his animal. “Healing of persons,” his body. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If it was scratched it is forbidden. As in the following case: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah the Prince to the hot springs of Gader. He hurt his finger and put a bandage on it. He saw it penetrate and cut it off. Did he not hear what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted? This is not comparable. There if it was scratched it is permitted, but here it was scratched and is forbidden.

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

(Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar.) The barrel of Ben Neṭoza became uncovered. He went and asked Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, who told him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: if he was sleeping it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one said, if he was sleeping it is permitted; the other said, if he was sleeping it is forbidden. In is reasonable [to infer] that Rebbi Ḥanina said, if he was sleeping it is permitted, since Rebbi Eleazar everywhere relies on Rebbi Ḥanina.

(Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar.) The barrel of Ben Neṭoza became uncovered. He went and asked Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, who told him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: if he was sleeping it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one said, if he was sleeping it is permitted; the other said, if he was sleeping it is forbidden. In is reasonable [to infer] that Rebbi Ḥanina said, if he was sleeping it is permitted, since Rebbi Eleazar everywhere relies on Rebbi Ḥanina.

Rebbi Immi said, one has to be careful with what the creatures are careful with: It is forbidden to put coins in one’s mouth, a bread under the armpit, a dish under one’s bed, and to stick a knife in an etrog, or a knife into a radish. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, all sweat that exudes from a human is deadly poison except the sweat of the face.

Untarred jugs, Rebbi Assi said, they are forbidden, Rebbi Immi said, they are permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi questioned: do we say that a tankard does not absorb? Rebbi Abba said, Rav Sheshet asked, could we say that a vessel for urine does not absorb?

What is the rule for their parboiled [food]? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah to the hot springs of Gadara and permitted their parboiled [food]. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, what is the difference between parboiled and lupines? Rebbi Yose said, parboiled is missing action by fire; lupines are not missing action by fire.

HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of Ashera,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he engraved engravings in it it cannot become invalidated. This is necessary: even if he removed the engravings. It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. The opinions of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seem inconsistent. There Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if he engraved engravings on it it cannot become invalidated; and we interpreted this to mean, even if he removed the engravings. And here he says so? It is more severe with engravings.

HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of Ashera,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he engraved engravings in it it cannot become invalidated. This is necessary: even if he removed the engravings. It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. The opinions of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seem inconsistent. There Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if he engraved engravings on it it cannot become invalidated; and we interpreted this to mean, even if he removed the engravings. And here he says so? It is more severe with engravings.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael said,” etc. Rebbi Immi said, the reason of Rebbi Ismael is because of a small Mercurius next to a large Mercurius. But the rabbis say, because of the feet of Mercurius. How large are the feet of Mercurius? 50 cubits.

Rav commanded to the family of Rav Aḥa, Rebbi Immi commanded to his own family, if you go out on the fast day you should not incline normally. Rebbi Jonah inclined on his side; Rebbi Aḥa inclined on his side. Rebbi Samuel said, I saw Rebbi Abbahu inclining normally. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Abbahu, is it not written, a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it. Explain it if he fixed a place for it. But is it not written, it was when David arrived at the mountaintop where one bows down before God? Except bowing down which is not on the ground. Does there exist bowing down which is not on the ground? They fell down with their faces to the ground and bowed down. Rebbi Abbahu added up to give thanks to the Eternal for He is good; Rebbi Mana added up to for eternal is His kindness to Israel. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, the stretching out on the Fast Day, and the willow of the Seventh Day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also this blood letting. It follows what Rebbi Immi said, the Babylonians in the name of the rabbis there: They permitted prostrating only on a public fast, and only on the side. The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his fathers: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that if he falls on his face the Holy One, praise to Him, would tell him, get up, should not fall down, in the case of an individual [praying] for the community.

Rav commanded to the family of Rav Aḥa, Rebbi Immi commanded to his own family, if you go out on the fast day you should not incline normally. Rebbi Jonah inclined on his side; Rebbi Aḥa inclined on his side. Rebbi Samuel said, I saw Rebbi Abbahu inclining normally. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Abbahu, is it not written, a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it. Explain it if he fixed a place for it. But is it not written, it was when David arrived at the mountaintop where one bows down before God? Except bowing down which is not on the ground. Does there exist bowing down which is not on the ground? They fell down with their faces to the ground and bowed down. Rebbi Abbahu added up to give thanks to the Eternal for He is good; Rebbi Mana added up to for eternal is His kindness to Israel. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, the stretching out on the Fast Day, and the willow of the Seventh Day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also this blood letting. It follows what Rebbi Immi said, the Babylonians in the name of the rabbis there: They permitted prostrating only on a public fast, and only on the side. The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his fathers: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that if he falls on his face the Holy One, praise to Him, would tell him, get up, should not fall down, in the case of an individual [praying] for the community.

Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Immi. One said, “plough it well; then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said, “may you succeed.” For him who said, plough it well; then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical, what means “one greets them”? “May you succeed.” But he who said that one says to a Gentile, may you succeed, what means that one greets Jews? “Peace be on you.”

Rebbi Immi instructed: It is forbidden to take the bread out of the oven with him. Similarly, it is forbidden to sprinkle with him.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Immi: A roasted egg of Samaritans is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Samaritans’ dishes are permitted. This is what you say about a dish usually made without wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he put some in, it is forbidden even for usufruct. As what had been stated: In earlier times they used to say, why is the wine of Ogdor forbidden? Because of Kefar-Pagesh, and of Burgata because of the Saracen tower, and of the Kushit spring because of Kefar Shalem. They changed to say, open it is everywhere forbidden, sealed it is permitted. Perforated and repaired it is like sealed, Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, it is like open. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I can confirm. If it has a cavity on it it was not opened, otherwise it was opened. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to the city of Samaria. The scribe came to him. He told him, bring me a closed jug. He answered him, there is a spring in front of you, drink. He importuned him; he said, there is a spring in front of you, drink. When he saw that he was going to importune him, he told him, if you are master of yourself, there is a spring in front of you, drink. But if your soul brings you to rebellion, you are going to swallow a knife if you are too covetous. The Samaritans already are degenerate.

Rebbi Aḥa went to Emmaus and ate something made in boiling water. Rebbi Jeremiah ate pickles. Rebbi Ḥizqiah ate locusts. Rebbi Abbahu forbade their wine on the testimony of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Immi who went up King’s Mountain and saw a Gentile who was suspected because of wine. They came and said it before him. He told them, but not as a pretext. But some say, one Sabbath eve no wine was found in all of Samaria. When Sabbath ended, it was found full from what the Arameans brought and the Samaritans accepted from them. But some say, when King Diocletian came here he decided and said, all peoples have to offer libations except the Jews. The Samaritans offered libations and their wine was forbidden. But some say, they have a kind of dove and they offer libations to it.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “forbidden” here, only “permitted”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is “forbidden” here. For if he reaches it he will inform him; if he does reach it he will not inform him, lest he owe him a favor. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the investigative unit comes in peaceful or warring manner.

The following is obvious: If the Jew holds the funnel and the Gentile pours, everybody agrees that is it forbidden. If the Gentile holds the funnel and the Jew pours, Rebbi Assi forbids and Rebbi Immi permits. If the Gentile holds the opening of the wineskin and the Jew pours, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: this is the disagreement. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose, which disagreement? He told him, the disasgreement between Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Immi. If the Jew holds the wineskin and the Gentile pours, they wanted to say that according to everybody it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel: In itself it implies that it is forbidden. For sometimes the Jew will loosen his grip and then the entire pouring is done by the Gentile. If somebody lets down a wineskin from top to bottom this is not pouring from vessel to vessel.

The following is obvious: If the Jew holds the funnel and the Gentile pours, everybody agrees that is it forbidden. If the Gentile holds the funnel and the Jew pours, Rebbi Assi forbids and Rebbi Immi permits. If the Gentile holds the opening of the wineskin and the Jew pours, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: this is the disagreement. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose, which disagreement? He told him, the disasgreement between Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Immi. If the Jew holds the wineskin and the Gentile pours, they wanted to say that according to everybody it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel: In itself it implies that it is forbidden. For sometimes the Jew will loosen his grip and then the entire pouring is done by the Gentile. If somebody lets down a wineskin from top to bottom this is not pouring from vessel to vessel.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last] it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water) and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Let us hear from the following: “When is leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural ones after three baking loads.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important personality or he married off his son, if he baked three loads in one week one after the other it is permitted. Even when they said of (rural) [city] bakers after three days, if he was under pressure and baked three loads one after the other, it is permitted. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted? And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah were instructing in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! But here we do not instruct so but Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following:: Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Immi, and Rebbi Yasa, and they instructed him following Rebbi Eliezer. How? Would they instruct following an isolated opinion? No, since they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile,” etc. “ If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, something of which he knows that it is used for human food, he washes them clean and they are pure. But pots and boiling kettles one cleanses in boiling water. All of these, if he used them even if he did not immerse them, or cleansed them in boiling water, or rubbed them clean, or made them glowing white in fire, they are pure.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, one has to immerse them, as by the following. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince went down to the hot springs of Gadara and borrowed silverware from the family Osinos. They asked Rebbi Jeremiah who said, one must immerse them because they left the impurity of Gentiles and entered the holiness of Israel. He went out and we want to learn. They left and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they said only “who buys”, but the borrower is permitted. Then even vessels. Rebbi Hoshaia bought vessels and immersed them.

HALAKHAH: [“Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqashiah says: The Holy One,praise to Him,wanted etc.” Why does one use a substitute name for the Name of the Holy One, praise to Him, and calls Him Place? To say that He is the Place of the world but the world is not His place. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Immi: It is written, dwelling is the Primordial God, to say that He is the dwelling of the world but the world is not His dwelling. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, it is written: The Eternal said, there is a place with Me; to say that He is the Place of the world but the world is not His place. Rebbi Isaac said, it is written: The Eternal is there, Sinai in the Holy. Would “the Holy in Sinai” not have been more reasonable? To say that He is the Place of the world but the world is not His place. Rebbi Yudan said, [a parable of] a hero riding on a horse with his weapons hanging down at both sides. It is not that the horse puts up with the hero, but the hero puts up with the horse.

“And a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement.” Is there an intentional inadvertent action concerning an instruction by the Court? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he knows the entire Torah but does not know this detail, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. If he knows this particular subject but not the entire Torah, he is Simeon ben Azzai for this particular subject. But we must hold that he knows the entire Torah and knows the particular subject, but he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them. If he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. As we have stated, I could think that if they tell you about right that it is left, and about left that it is right, you should listen to them? The verse says, “to go to the right or to the left;” that they should tell you about the right that it is right, and about the left that it is left. What about it? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because everywhere for an inadvertent sin one is not liable but for an intentional one is liable, and here even intentionally he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

If somebody had selected his purification sacrifice when he became a deaf-mute, or insane, or an apostate, or the Court rules that fat may be eaten, Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sacrifice of purification is pushed aside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Aḥa switches traditions, to avoid that a word of Rebbi Joḥanan contradict his own word. For Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One sprinkles the blood of a purification sacrifice or a reparation sacrifice for a person [terminally ill]. The Rebbi of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and [Rebbi] Immi, [one] switches and one says like [this] Tanna.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. For instructions they considered the settlement of the Land of Israel. For impurity they considered the majority of those coming to the Temple precinct. How? Do they estimate every group or only the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, when they are still outside they estimate themselves. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For appearance they consider from Levo- Ḥamat to the brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is, at that time Solomon celebrated the holiday, and all of Israel, etc.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled in error,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. “Intentionally but they acted in error.” Is there intentional misdeed or error with respect of an instruction by the Court? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If not most of the public accepted it. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if they rebelled against their instruction. What is the difference between them? If they first accepted and then rebelled. In the opinions of the colleagues, since they rebelled, they are not liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, since at the first moment they accepted it, those are liable.

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

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.

Those of Bar Pazi and (Bar) [Rebbi] Hoshaia 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. 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.

There, we have stated: “A [dead] crawling animal found in a dead-end alley causes impurity retroactively. Rebbi Immi asked, does this Mishnah not disagree with Shammai? Rebbi Yose said, this is true, it does not follow Shammai, but even Hillel it does not follow. Does Hillel not agree that a dead-end alley which was swept or inundated by a rainstorm is pure? Shammai says, since this woman regularly urinates, she is like a dead-end alley which was swept or inundated by a rainstorm and is pure.

So far if she checked and found herself dry. If she checked and found herself pure? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If she checked and found herself pure she is forbidden to her husband until her [blood’s] source dries up. One Rebbi Tobi said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, she is forbidden to her house for 24 hours. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, when I immigrated here, I heard from all rabbis that she is immediately permitted to her husband. They wanted to say that for him who says, she is permitted to her husband, this is a check which diminishes from 24 hours, but for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is not counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours. But even for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours. Why is she forbidden to her husband? Because she is used to pure blood, she might get used to impure blood.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Meïr’s reason is that “shaping” is written for them as for humans. “The Eternal God shaped man as dust from the earth.” Rebbi Immi asked, because “shaping” is written for them as for animals, “the Eternal God shaped from the earth all animals of the field and the birds of the sky”? But is it not written “for behold the Shaper of mountains and Creator of wind”? Then, if she has a miscarriage in the shape of a mountain, she should be impure because of birth! There is a difference, for shaping is not written for them in the Creation story. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they look forward as humans do. Abba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they walk forward as humans do. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: Did we not state, “if his eyeball is round like that of a human,” is that not a defect? Rebbi Yose said, did we not state, look forward; did we not state, walk? What about it? Human eyeballs are round, animal eyeballs are elongated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, human eyes have more white than black, animal eyes have more black than white.