implies

When, therefore, He has fulfilled the commandment, what saith He? “Who is he that will contend with me? let him oppose me: or who is he that will enter into judgment with me? let him draw near to the servant of the Lord.” “Woe unto you, for ye shall all wax old, like a garment, and the moth shall eat you up.” And again the prophet says, “Since as a mighty stone He is laid for crushing, behold I cast down for the foundations of Zion a stone, precious, elect, a corner-stone, honourable.” Next, what says He? “And he who shall trust in it shall live for ever.” Is our hope, then, upon a stone? Far from it. But [the language is used] inasmuch as He laid his flesh [as a foundation] with power; for He says, “And He placed me as a firm rock.” And the prophet says again, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner.” And again he says, “This is the great and wonderful day which the Lord hath made.” I write the more simply unto you, that ye may understand. I am the offscouring of your love. What, then, again says the prophet? “The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,” and “upon my garment they cast lots.” Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, “Woe to their soul, because they have counselled an evil counsel against themselves, saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us.” And Moses also says to them, “Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware [to give] to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey.” What, then, says Knowledge? Learn: “Trust,” she says, “in Him who is to be manifested to you in the flesh—that is, Jesus.” For man is earth in a suffering state, for the formation of Adam was from the face of the earth. What, then, meaneth this: “into the good land, a land flowing with milk and honey?” Blessed be our Lord, who has placed in us wisdom and understanding of secret things. For the prophet says, “Who shall understand the parable of the Lord, except him who is wise and prudent, and who loves his Lord?” Since, therefore, having renewed us by the remission of our sins, He hath made us after another pattern, [it is His purpose] that we should possess the soul of children, inasmuch as He has created us anew by His Spirit. For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, “Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea.” And the Lord said, on beholding the fair creature man, “Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” These things [were spoken] to the Son. Again, I will show thee how, in respect to us, He has accomplished a second fashioning in these last days. The Lord says, “Behold, I will make the last like the first.” In reference to this, then, the prophet proclaimed, “Enter ye into the land flowing with milk and honey, and have dominion over it.” Behold, therefore, we have been refashioned, as again He says in another prophet, “Behold, saith the Lord, I will take away from these, that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, their stony hearts, and I will put hearts of flesh within them,” because He was to be manifested in flesh, and to sojourn among us. For, my brethren, the habitation of our heart is a holy temple to the Lord. For again saith the Lord, “And wherewith shall I appear before the Lord my God, and be glorified?” He says, “I will confess to thee in the church in the midst of my brethren; and I will praise thee in the midst of the assembly of the saints.” We, then, are they whom He has led into the good land. What, then, mean the milk and honey? This, that as the infant is kept alive first by honey, and then by milk, so also we, being quickened and kept alive by the faith of the promise and by the word, shall live ruling over the earth. But He said above, “Let them increase, and rule over the fishes.” Who then is able to govern the beasts, or the fishes, or the fowls of heaven? For we ought to perceive that to govern implies authority, so that one should command and rule. If, therefore, this does not exist at present, yet still He has promised it to us. When? When we ourselves also have been made perfect [so as] to become heirs of the covenant of the Lord.

But what promise did Jesus make which He did not perform? Let Celsus produce any instance of such, and make good his charge. But he will be unable to do so, especially since it is from mistakes, arising either from misapprehension of the Gospel narratives, or from Jewish stories, that he thinks to derive the charges which he brings against Jesus or against ourselves. Moreover, again, when the Jew says, “We both found him guilty, and condemned him as deserving of death,” let them show how they who sought to concoct false witness against Him proved Him to be guilty. Was not the great charge against Jesus, which His accusers brought forward, this, that He said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to raise it up again?” But in so saying, He spake of the temple of His body; while they thought, not being able to understand the meaning of the speaker, that His reference was to the temple of stone, which was treated by the Jews with greater respect than He was who ought to have been honoured as the true Temple of God—the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Truth. And who can say that “Jesus attempted to make His escape by disgracefully concealing Himself?” Let any one point to an act deserving to be called disgraceful. And when he adds, “he was taken prisoner,” I would say that, if to be taken prisoner implies an act done against one’s will, then Jesus was not taken prisoner; for at the fitting time He did not prevent Himself falling into the hands of men, as the Lamb of God, that He might take away the sin of the world. For, knowing all things that were to come upon Him, He went forth, and said to them, “Whom seek ye?” and they answered, “Jesus of Nazareth;” and He said unto them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who betrayed Him, was standing with them. When, therefore, He had said to them, “I am He,” they went backwards and fell to the ground. Again He asked them, “Whom seek ye?” and they said again, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I told you I am He; if then ye seek me, let these go away.” Nay, even to him who wished to help Him, and who smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his ear, He said: “Put up thy sword into its sheath: for all they who draw the sword shall perish by the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot even now pray to my Father, and He will presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” And if any one imagines these statements to be inventions of the writers of the Gospels, why should not those statements rather be regarded as inventions which proceeded from a spirit of hatred and hostility against Jesus and the Christians? and these the truth, which proceed from those who manifest the sincerity of their feelings towards Jesus, by enduring everything, whatever it may be, for the sake of His words? For the reception by the disciples of such power of endurance and resolution continued even to death, with a disposition of mind that would not invent regarding their Teacher what was not true, is a very evident proof to all candid judges that they were fully persuaded of the truth of what they wrote, seeing they submitted to trials so numerous and so severe, for the sake of Him whom they believed to be the Son of God.

Immediately after this, Celsus, assailing the contents of the first book of Moses, which is entitled “Genesis,” asserts that “the Jews accordingly endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers and deceivers, appealing to the testimony of dark and ambiguous words, whose meaning was veiled in obscurity, and which they misinterpreted to the unlearned and ignorant, and that, too, when such a point had never been called in question during the long preceding period.” Now Celsus appears to me in these words to have expressed very obscurely the meaning which he intended to convey. It is probable, indeed, that his obscurity on this subject is intentional, inasmuch as he saw the strength of the argument which establishes the descent of the Jews from their ancestors; while again, on the other hand, he wished not to appear ignorant that the question regarding the Jews and their descent was one that could not be lightly disposed of. It is certain, however, that the Jews trace their genealogy back to the three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And the names of these individuals possess such efficacy, when united with the name of God, that not only do those belonging to the nation employ in their prayers to God, and in the exorcising of demons, the words, “God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” but so also do almost all those who occupy themselves with incantations and magical rites. For there is found in treatises on magic in many countries such an invocation of God, and assumption of the divine name, as implies a familiar use of it by these men in their dealings with demons. These facts, then—adduced by Jews and Christians to prove the sacred character of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Jewish race—appear to me not to have been altogether unknown to Celsus, but not to have been distinctly set forth by him, because he was unable to answer the argument which might be founded on them.

Celsus next refers us to Plato as to a more effective teacher of theological truth, and quotes the following passage from the Timœus: “It is a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of this universe; and after having found Him, it is impossible to make Him known to all.” To which he himself adds this remark: “You perceive, then, how divine men seek after the way of truth, and how well Plato knew that it was impossible for all men to walk in it. But as wise men have found it for the express purpose of being able to convey to us some notion of Him who is the first, the unspeakable Being,—a notion, namely, which may represent Him to us through the medium of other objects,—they endeavour either by synthesis, which is the combining of various qualities, or by analysis, which is the separation and setting aside of some qualities, or finally by analogy;—in these ways, I say, they endeavour to set before us that which it is impossible to express in words. I should therefore be surprised if you could follow in that course, since you are so completely wedded to the flesh as to be incapable of seeing aught but what is impure.” These words of Plato are noble and admirable; but see if Scripture does not give us an example of a regard for mankind still greater in God the Word, who was “in the beginning with God,” and “who was made flesh,” in order that He might reveal to all men truths which, according to Plato, it would be impossible to make known to all men, even after he had found them himself. Plato may say that “it is a hard thing to find out the Creator and Father of this universe;” by which language he implies that it is not wholly beyond the power of human nature to attain to such a knowledge as is either worthy of God, or if not, is far beyond that which is commonly attained (although if it were true that Plato or any other of the Greeks had found God, they would never have given homage and worship, or ascribed the name of God, to any other than to Him: they would have abandoned all others, and would not have associated with this great God objects which can have nothing in common with Him). For ourselves, we maintain that human nature is in no way able to seek after God, or to attain a clear knowledge of Him without the help of Him whom it seeks. He makes Himself known to those who, after doing all that their powers will allow, confess that they need help from Him, who discovers Himself to those whom He approves, in so far as it is possible for man and the soul still dwelling in the body to know God.

Observe that when Plato says, that “after having found out the Creator and Father of the universe, it is impossible to make Him known to all men,” he does not speak of Him as unspeakable, and as incapable of being expressed in words. On the contrary, he implies that He may be spoken of, and that there are a few to whom He may be made known. But Celsus, as if forgetting the language which he had just quoted from Plato, immediately gives God the name of “the unspeakable.” He says: “since the wise men have found out this way, in order to be able to give us some idea of the First of Beings, who is unspeakable.” For ourselves, we hold that not God alone is unspeakable, but other things also which are inferior to Him. Such are the things which Paul labours to express when he says, “I heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter,” where the word “heard” is used in the sense of “understood;” as in the passage, “He who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” We also hold that it is a hard matter to see the Creator and Father of the universe; but it is possible to see Him in the way thus referred to, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God;” and not only so, but also in the sense of the words of Him “who is the image of the invisible God;” “He who hath seen me hath seen the Father who sent me.” No sensible person could suppose that these last words were spoken in reference to His bodily presence, which was open to the view of all; otherwise all those who said, “Crucify him, crucify him,” and Pilate, who had power over the humanity of Jesus, were among those who saw God the Father, which is absurd. Moreover, that these words, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father who sent me,” are not to be taken in their grosser sense, is plain from the answer which He gave to Philip, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet dost thou not know me, Philip?” after Philip had asked, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” He, then, who perceives how these words, “The Word was made flesh,” are to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God, the first-born of all creation, will also understand how, in seeing the image of the invisible God, we see “the Creator and Father of the universe.”

Let us now see what follows. “Let us pass on,” says he, “to another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: ‘I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.’ Heraclitus also says in one place: ‘Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.’ And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons.”

Assuredly thus is the tradition, since also He prolongeth His wrath against the wicked. But the phrase ARK APIM, Arikh Aphim, also implies the same as “‘ healing power of countenance.”

An ordinary priest shall not marry a woman incapable of procreation, unless he already has a wife or children. Rabbi Judah said: even though he has a wife and children he shall not marry a woman incapable of procreation, since she is a zonah, as mentioned in the Torah. But the Sages said: the term zonah implies only a female convert, freed slavewoman and one who has been subjected to illicit intercourse.

Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial. Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21). The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive? If so, why does it say “A life for life”? For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial.

It was stated: If someone wants to greet his teacher or anybody who his greater than himself in Torah, he is permitted to do so. That implies that a person has to greet anybody who is greater than himself in Torah. And also from the following: If one tore his clothes and the soul returned, if it is instantaneous he does not have to tear again. If it is later, he has to tear again. How much is instantaneous? The time for speech. How much is time of speech? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: the time one needs to greet his friend. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: the time for greeting between teacher and student, when he says “Peace be with you, my teacher.”

Abbaye ben Rebbi Benjamin stated: Those who stand behind the Cohanim are not included in their blessing. Those who stand before the Cohanim; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said the blessing even cuts through an iron wall. About those who stand on the side, we may understand from the following: If he wanted to sprinkle before him and he sprinkled behind him, behind him and he sprinkled before him, his sprinkling is invalid. Before him and he sprinkled on his sides, his sprinkling is valid. This implies that those who stand on the side are included in the blessing.

Rebbi Yoḥanan took an olive and recited a benediction before and after. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was looking at him. Rebbi Yoḥanan said to him: Babylonian, why are you looking at me? Don’t you agree that everything from the Seven Kinds needs a benediction before and after? He agrees. What is his problem? Because its pit reduces it. Does Rebbi Yoḥanan agree that its pit reduces it? What Rebbi Yoḥanan did was because of a creature. The word of Rebbi Yoḥanan implies that even one berry from a pomegranate needs a benediction before and after.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? (Deut. 32:3) “For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God.” For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. What following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference from the lesser to the greater. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah that needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah that needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food that needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, (1Sam. 9:13): “For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat.” Rebbi Nathan said, (Ex. 23:24) “you shall serve the Eternal, your God and give praise for your bread and your water”; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, somuch more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? (Deut. 32:3) “For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God.” For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. What following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference from the lesser to the greater. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah that needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah that needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food that needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, (1Sam. 9:13): “For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat.” Rebbi Nathan said, (Ex. 23:24) “you shall serve the Eternal, your God and give praise for your bread and your water”; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, somuch more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? (Deut. 32:3) “For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God.” For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. What following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference from the lesser to the greater. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah that needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah that needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food that needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, (1Sam. 9:13): “For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat.” Rebbi Nathan said, (Ex. 23:24) “you shall serve the Eternal, your God and give praise for your bread and your water”; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, somuch more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

For Torah there is written a benediction before, but no benediction is written after. What is written before it? (Deut. 32:3) “For I am invoking the name of the Eternal, attribute greatness to our God.” For food there is written a benediction after, but no benediction is written before. What is written after it? (Deut. 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise”. From where that which is said about one on the other and vice-versa? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The Name is mentioned in both verses as parallel expressions. Just as the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction before, so the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction before. And just as the Name that is mentioned concerning food implies a benediction after, so the Name that is mentioned concerning Torah implies a benediction after. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. What following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an inference from the lesser to the greater. If food that needs no explicit benediction before, needs a benediction afterwards, regarding Torah that needs a benediction before, it is only logical that it should need a benediction afterwards. That works for Torah; what about food? If Torah that needs no benediction afterwards, needs a benediction before, regarding food that needs a benediction afterwards, it is only logical that it should need a benediction before. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan say, (1Sam. 9:13): “For he will recite the benediction over the sacrifice and after that the invited guests will eat.” Rebbi Nathan said, (Ex. 23:24) “you shall serve the Eternal, your God and give praise for your bread and your water”; when is it called your bread and your water, before you eat. Rebbi said, if he has to give praise when he ate and is satiated, somuch more at a time when he is hungry for food. That is for food, what about Torah? If food, which sustains only temporary life, needs a benediction before and after, Torah, which sustains eternal life, so much more.

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

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

May the seller get the peah which permits the sheaves? Let us hear it from the following (Mishnah 5:4): “ Rebbi Jehudah said: When is this, if he received it for a half, a third, or a quarter.” What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be, “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, this implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose said, there the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field started during his ownership. It is correct that if he cut half of the field and sold what he cut, the buyer is allowed gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. May the buyer get the peah which permits the sheaves of the seller? That is the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince.

What text implies this? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, …” Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.

What is the difference between this and the first case? It must be “if you cut it, a third will be yours.” Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, that implies that the seller may get the peah which permits the sheaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the obligation of the field did come during his ownership, but here the obligation of the field did not come during his ownership.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth year after planting from the Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi permitted Beth Shean on the testimony of Joshua ben Zeruz, the son of Rebbi Meïr’s father-in-law, who said, I saw Rebbi Meïr buy vegetables from a garden in the Sabbatical year. He permitted all of it! Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that nobody should act in public; I say that this garden was a particular case for him; should he have permitted it completely? Rebbi permitted Beth Shean, permitted Caesarea, permitted Bet Guvrin, permitted Kefar Ẓemaḥ. Rebbi permitted to buy vegetables after the end of the Sabbatical year and all were saying bad things about him. He said to them, come and let us discuss the matter. It is written (2Kings 18:4): “He smashed the brass snake.” Was there no just person between Moses and Hezekiah to remove it? But the Holy One, praise to Him, reserved that crown to him so he could crown himself with it. We also had this crown reserved by the Holy One, praise to Him, to crown ourselves with it.

This is the Mishnah: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts to the Cohen on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath. The second implies the first; that is, if they are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.

This is the Mishnah: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts to the Cohen on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath. The second implies the first; that is, if they are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.

This is the Mishnah: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts to the Cohen on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath. The second implies the first; that is, if they are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.

This is the Mishnah: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts to the Cohen on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath. The second implies the first; that is, if they are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, three may tithe without permission: He whose ṭevel was mixed with profane produce. And he who buys from the division of the Samaritans. Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that he does not take money from the tribe. If you say that he takes money from the tribe, he tithed with permission!

What are we talking about? If he intended it for seed then even one grain of wheat is forbidden. If to mix in, it is forbidden to mix. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their stead. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to mix in; if you say that one is permitted to mix them back in, why require good grain instead?

The House of Yannai said, on the fence one may sow all kinds of mixtures. A fence implies leniencies and stringencies. How is this? Less than a bet rova‘ shaven in a grain field may not be sown; if surrounded with a fence it may be sown. A bet rova‘ in open country may be sown with two kinds; if surrounded with a fence this is forbidden.

Does a fence save grains? Does sown dry land save vegetables? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeïra understood it from the following: “One sows close to dried-up tree roots.” This mentions only dry ones; hence, if they are moist, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose understood it from the following: “One does sow close to a fallow field, a ploughed field, a closure, a foot path, a fence ten hand-breadths high.” That implies that a sown fence saves grains! Even if you accept “fence ten hand-breadths high,” a sown fence does not have to save grains. There is a difference here because the fence is sown and no sown fence saves grains.

One assumes that another [vine] was planted there, for all four sides. One cannot actually plant on any of the four sides because it would form a tail and there is no tail for a tail. This implies that there is no tail for a large vineyard, which gives a simple answer to the question of Rebbi Yose ben Zabida in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one considers as if another [vine] was planted there.

What is the status of the intermediate spaces? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are forbidden and sanctify. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are forbidden and do not sanctify. What can you say? If it is a large vineyard, what about its dry spot, even where it is planted! If it is a small vineyard, it has no circumference. But we must deal with a large vineyard planted in the manner of a small one. Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that a large vineyard planted eight by eight has no circumference. If you say that the inside is forbidden and sanctifies if it is planted 16 by 16, the outside not so much more?

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]. How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]. How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

HALAKHAH: “One gives manure and one hoes in melon fields”, etc. May one plough for these? It was stated: “As long as one may plough one may fertilize and hoe; if one may not plough then one may neither fertilize nor hoe.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this: “One fertilizes and hoes in melon and gourd fields until the New Year; the same applies to irrigated fields,” and we have stated on this: “One ploughs irrigated fields until the New Year; Rebbi says until three days before the New Year so that one may sow and it starts to form roots, or one plants and it starts to form roots.” If it would grow roots in three days! “Rebbi says, until three months before the New Year so that one may sow rice, have it form roots, transplant it and have the roots take hold.”

Explanation: Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman passed by one of the ploughmen in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said to him, may you succed. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said to him, did not Rebbi teach us (Ps. 129:8): “The passers-by did not say,” this implies that it is forbidden to say “may you succeed” to one who ploughs in the Sabbatical. He told him, you know how to read but you do not know how to make a homily. “The passers-by did not say,” refers to the nations of the world who pass out of the world, they did not say to Israel “the blessing of the Eternal is on you.” What does Israel say to them, “we bless you in the Name of the Eternal.” All blessings that come into the world because of us are not enough for you, you do not say, come and take from these blessing for yourselves, but you roll over us pro-rated contributions and fines, head taxes and annonae.

There, we have stated (Mishnah ‘Uqeẓin 3:6): “Unripe figs and grapes, Rebbi Aqiba said they may become impure by the impurity of food; Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said only after they come to the period of tithing.” We have stated here “immediately” but is it “not immediately”? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Mishnah speaks only about unripe figs, but unripe fruit of any other kind may not become impure by the impurity of food until it reaches the period of tithing. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah implies this: “Unripe figs when they started to be radiant one eats them with his bread in the field.” Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees about the Sabbatical year. “Everybody agrees,” the colleagues said that the figs do not become impure by the impurity of food.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Mishnah deals with the leaves of false arum. Rav Hoshaiah brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: “The leaves of arum or of onions.” Can you speak of leaves of false onions? The word of Rebbi Jeremiah implies that anything subject to removal found inside something not subject to removal is subject to removal. How does Rebbi Jeremiah deal with this? He explains it if he trampled on the leaves.

“Arum of the year before the Sabbatical” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not so also in the other years of the cycle since we have stated: “If it was the second year entering the third, he may not bend it or withhold water from it so it should be Second Tithe; if it was the third year entering the fourth, he may bend it and withhold water from it so it should be tithe of the poor”? This implies that bending down is like tearing out! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Explain that he tore them out before they started to grow.

If a butcher who is a Cohen gets hold of a first-born, may he cut it up into roasts and sell it on the market? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say it is permitted, analogous to “anything usually stored in bundles in the house may be bundled on the market”. Rebbi Mana said, that statement itself implies that it is forbidden, that he should not treat its body as merchandise.

“They also said before him.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a fellow is forbidden to marry the daughter of a vulgar. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Eliezer used to permit the leavened matter of a Samaritan immediately after Passover.

Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, our Mishnah implies this: “The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.” Does one learn court documents from prozbol? It was found stated: This about court documents was learned from the rules of prozbol.

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.

How does he handle it? He gives both of them to the Cohen; the Cohen pays for one of them. Which one does he pay for, the larger or the smaller one? Since we have stated: “they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one,” this implies that he pays for the larger one.

How is this? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “ it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah; Israel poor and Cohanim poor collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israel poor sell theirs to Cohanim for the price of heave but the money is theirs.”

“ “He who flails is praiseworthy.” Praiseworthy in relation to whom? To him who threshes. “He who threshes, what shall he do?” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “He hangs vetch for her and she likes it better than anything.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if he did this with profane [grain] he does not transgress “do not muzzle.”

This all is if the outer skin does not impart taste. But if it does, there are Tannaïm who state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” The Mishnah there implies also threshing which is not permitted to you, since we have stated: “He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal.”

Rebbi Yose said: This implies that if there were 100 seah, each one lifted from 100 seah, and one profane was switched with one of them, all would be permitted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, they asked before Rebbi Yannai: What [are the rules] if he put it on the plug of the amphora? He said to them (Job 36:33): “Its neighbor will inform about it.” What means, “its neighbor will inform about it”? Rebbi Yose said, that which we have stated there: “An amphora full of fruits added to fluids, or one full of fluids added to fruits.” As you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora; so here only if the loaf touches the plug. Rebbi Mana said, from this it follows as you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora itself; so here only if the loaf touches the plug itself. His opinion implies, even [if the pitta] is cold. Rebbi Abba said, the problem was about a cold one. But did we not state “hot”? Rav Ḥisda said, that one should not say since the vapor absorbs it should be permitted.

It implies that they become ṭevel in bundles. Why not single ears? One never gathers for that. But may grains be gathered thus? One does not grow for that. But these, one gathers for this, one grows for this.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this implies that broken [olives] absorb, release, and absorb again; whole [olives] absorb, release, but do not absorb again. That means, if it is neither improving nor spoiling it is forbidden. The Mishnah is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon says if its taste spoils, it is forbidden. But did Rebbi Simeon not say, if its taste spoils, it is permitted? Following what Rebbi Simeon says, irrigated cabbage preserved with unirrigated cabbage is forbidden because it absorbs.

Rebbi Mana ben Rebbi Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits to laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. Rebbi Yose objected: Did we not state: “From a professional it is permitted, not from a professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted even if it is cooked; similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if not cooked. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Maria said, even according to him who says from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows. This implies that usufruct of heave is permitted, usufruct of paganism is forbidden.

Rebbi Eliezer agrees that if he tithed the dates, their honey is permitted even in Spain. This implies that he tithes dates including honey proportional to the dates. “Rebbi Eliezer subjects date honey to tithes.” We have stated: “Rebbi Nathan says, not that Rebbi Eliezer subjects it to tithes but Rebbi Eliezer says he should not eat from the tithes until he also tithed the honey.” This implies that he tithes dates including honey proportional to honey and dates.

Rebbi Eliezer agrees that if he tithed the dates, their honey is permitted even in Spain. This implies that he tithes dates including honey proportional to the dates. “Rebbi Eliezer subjects date honey to tithes.” We have stated: “Rebbi Nathan says, not that Rebbi Eliezer subjects it to tithes but Rebbi Eliezer says he should not eat from the tithes until he also tithed the honey.” This implies that he tithes dates including honey proportional to honey and dates.

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: A pot in which heave was cooked is cleansed three times with boiling water and that is enough. Rebbi Abba said, one does not learn from this for carcass meat. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Abba: Heave implies a deadly sin, carcass meat is a simple prohibition, and you say so? He said to me, it follows him who says, they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Some want to understand it from the following: (Deut. 14:22): “You should certainly tithe,” a general statement. “All grain of your seed,” a detail. For every general statement followed by a detail, the general statement only implies the detail. That means, only grain. From where legumes? The verse says (Lev. 27:30): “All tithe from the earth, from seeds of the earth, from the fruit of the tree, belongs to the Eternal.” This includes seeds of garlic, cress and rocket. I might think to add the upper part of arum and the seeds of vetch, the seeds of onions, the seeds of turnips and radishes, and all other garden seeds that are not eaten; the verse says, “from seeds of the earth,” and not all seeds of the earth. (Lev. 27:30) “From fruits of trees,” to include all fruits of trees. I might think to add acacia and ṣalmona pods, and carobs from dry land; the verse says, “from fruits of trees,” not all fruits of trees.

That means that the house creates ṭevel for its owner but not for others. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah said the same thing as we have stated: “Rebbi Neḥemiah says, every [courtyard] in which a person is not ashamed to eat obligates.” Rebbi Yose said, we thought that Rebbi Neḥemiah and the other rabbis disagree about a courtyard in which he would be ashamed to eat anywhere. That means, not one in which he would be ashamed at some place but not at another. Since Rebbi Eleazar said Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah said the same thing, this implies that a place where he would be ashamed is free and one where he would not be ashamed is obligated.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah implies that they made it like a branch hanging into the courtyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he eats single ones, eats in a public place, and leaves some remainder. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, even if he does not eat single ones, even if he does not eat in a public place and leaves no remainder.

According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh. His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling? Following what we stated: “If men participate with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid”.

“If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free.” Rav said, he is forbidden to eat. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Aḥa: Rav said this in case he brought it into a secure courtyard, following Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Mana said, our Mishnah implies this: “If somebody bought standing produce, it is free.” Therefore, after it was cut it is obligated. Who is the person who holds that a sale induces ṭevel for produce not fully processed? Is this not Rebbi Meїr? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is from Rebbi Jehudah. It was stated so: “Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, also he who sends to his friend olives from the press, young plants, and bundles of fenugreek, should not eat before he tithed since people usually send these things to their friends as ṭevel.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if a Fellow sent to a Fellow, he has to tithe. The colleagues asked, we can understand a vulgar who is suspect; is a Fellow suspect? Rebbi Yose said, is the vulgar not like a Fellow in matters of heave? It really is so: People usually send these things as ṭevel to their friends.

Menaḥem ben Maximus the brother of Jonathan Caiphas in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Flax may be bought from everybody during the Sabbatical. That is, if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden. Zeugos, the relative of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Vetch may be bought from anybody during the Sabbatical. Rebbi Yose said: Does our Mishnah say so? “The upper seed of arum, the seeds of leeks, seeds of egg plants, seeds of turnips and radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten.” We have stated on this: Seeds of indigo, seeds of madder, and seeds of vetch. That implies, not vetch itself. Maybe if you do not know whether he is suspect or not. Therefore, if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden.

Rebbi Gorion in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Ṭarphon implies that one may not redeem sanctified food to feed it to the dogs. Rebbi Yose said, it seems reasonable that anything which can be human food cannot be redeemed to be fed to animals, but anything which is not human food can be redeemed to be fed to animals.

Rebbi Aḥa said, this implies that the Temple will be rebuilt before the kingdom of David’s dynasty as it is written (Deut. 32:14): “From the blood of a grape you will drink as wine”. And you say so!

It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only for the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth-year orchard from Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

HALAKHAH: Is it not ṭevel? Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: This implies that ṭevel is called holy.

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies some are censure and some praise. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among Cohanim and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora and Judah ben Patora came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is (Num. 15:20) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated: Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101.” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it.” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis, one said in one case there is enough to lift, in the other case there is not enough to lift; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

HALAKHAH: “Two women who each made,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, usually for women, one does not mind, two do mind. They gave to one woman who minds the status of two women, to two women who do not mind the status of one woman. If she does not mind, why does she make it at two different places? Rebbi Jonah said, because she has not enough space to knead. The word of Rebbi Jonah implies that if she had enough space to knead but she makes it in two portions, she does mind. Clean and coarse [flour], she does mind. Rebbi Lazar said, they gave two different habits the status of two women. Samuel bar Abba asked, even if they come to agree?

They wanted to say what Rebbi Aqiba said, ḥallah may be taken from a qab from practice, not as a biblical standard. Since we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate,” this implies that it is by biblical standards.

Rebbi Abbahu instructed in Bostra that it needs a plurality. Rebbi Jonah said, it teaches that it is lifted by less than 100 and is not forbidden up to 101. Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah implies even one in one, as we have stated: “It may be eaten at one table with a layman”.

HALAKHAH: (Lev. 19:21) “When you plant,” this excludes what Gentiles planted before Israel came to the Land. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Abba, this implies that an exempt root exempts.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit.” It is difficult! If it is forbidden for the nazir why a fruit? If it is a fruit it should be forbidden for everybody! The word of Rebbi Isaac implies that it is forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Isaac asked: Who stated “one does not graft with spathe of ‘orlah”? Rebbi Yose!

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit, he is liable because of him who carries on his back, from the following: “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable.” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so his load exited first. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold.” Is the threshold not karmelit? Rebbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A person should not sit before the barber,” etc. We have stated “close to the afternoon prayers.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, close to darkness. Our Mishnah needs Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita and Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita needs our Mishnah. If Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that he means exactly darkness but not the afternoon prayers. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary. But if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that everywhere “afternoon prayers” is stated it means afternoon prayers, and everywhere “darkness” is stated it means darkness. Since we stated “afternoon prayers” and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “darkness”, this implies that “darkness” stated later refers to the time of afternoon prayers. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother said, our Mishnah refers to the vulgar, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated to fellows. The rabbis of Caesarea say our Mishnah is following Rebbi Jehudah, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the rabbis.

The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said a Gentile needs preparation, the other said, a Gentile does not need preparation. We did not know who said this and who said that. From that Rav refrained from coming before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who asked him, where have you been? He told him: a caravan passed by and I ate figs from them this implies that he said, a Gentile does not need preparation.

“Nor with oil to be burned.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is forbidden to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But have we not stated: “One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs.” Rebbi Yose said, it is written about the Sabbath, do not do any work; it is done automatically. But here the Torah said that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, not to speak of the Sabbath. What did you see that you said so? You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire. After two mornings, one the morning of the 15 and the other the morning of the 16. And it is written, what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day.

May one light a fire under a pyre of leavened material? For him who infers it from remainder, it is forbidden. But for him who does not infer it from remainder, it is permitted. Rav Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥisda: this implies that it is permitted to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But did we not state, “one does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” because of a holiday which falls on Friday. But then one should not light oil to be burned in the night since one does not burn sancta in the night! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they followed the argument of Rebbi Ismael. Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night. Where do you have oil to be burned whose time has passed? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: Since it became impure it is as if its time had passed.

If one set a fire and extinguished with the same blowing he is liable twice. Rebbi Eudaimon the brother of Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if he blew at vessels and broke them, he pays full damages. He who stirs coals under a pot on the Sabbath is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, he is liable twice, once that he extinguished the upper layer and once that he set fire to the lower layer. But he who stirs coals to warm himself in front of them on the Sabbath is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is a disagreement; according to him who said that he is liable only once. But according to him who said that he is twice liable he is liable. For Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he is not twice liable but he is considered as if twice liable. Rebbi Yudan said, there he does not want that they be set on fire and he does not want that they be extinguished. But here he wants that they be set on fire and he wants that they be extinguished.

One who empties, only if he empties completely, since it was stated: he who empties has to scratch out by hand. This implies that he has to empty completely. If one covers with ashes, does he have to cover completely? Since it was stated: when he kindled flax tow over it, this implies even if he did not completely cover it with ashes. When was this said? On a holiday which happens to fall on Friday; Rebbi Ashian said, one kindles flax tow over it.

One who empties, only if he empties completely, since it was stated: he who empties has to scratch out by hand. This implies that he has to empty completely. If one covers with ashes, does he have to cover completely? Since it was stated: when he kindled flax tow over it, this implies even if he did not completely cover it with ashes. When was this said? On a holiday which happens to fall on Friday; Rebbi Ashian said, one kindles flax tow over it.

Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abba, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, the words of Rebbi Meïr, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited. But the other one said, anything which one specified for something prohibited is prohibited. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi (Ḥanina) [Ḥanania] said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is this (brick) [lamp] not specifically for something forbidden? This implies that he was the one who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited. The one who said specific, so much more if he specified. But he who said if he specified, not if it is specific.

“But one may not put water in it since he would extinguish.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Yose’s. We were of the opinion to say, where disagree (Rebbi Meïr) [what Rebbi Yose says] and the rabbis? When he made a barrier of vessels. But not if he made a barrier of water. Since Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Yose’s, it implies that there is disagreement even if he made a barrier of water.

It was stated: One does not store away in hot ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that it is permitted to store away in cold ashes. As the following: Rebbi Yannai’s daughter was serving her father and brought him hot dishes. He asked her, how was this made? She told him, (with a spade and) [it was hidden in] olive cake. He said to her, you should not do this, but (with a spade) [hide it] in a box and put the box on the olive cake. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi Ḥanina disagrees with this. Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Olive cake at the bottom and straw on both sides is forbidden, and Rebbi Yannai agrees.

Not only if they are wet but even if they were dry and became wet, as these fibers; are these not like dry which became wet? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Shila: This implies that one who hides a cauldron must let it be missing a little lest he take it up and it spills and heats. There, we stated: “The same holds for new olive cake but old one is pure.” What is new and what is old? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: New within 12 months, old after 12 months.

“And in flax residue, and in sawdust.” We have stated נְסוּרֶת. In the House of Rebbi they stated נְעוֹרֶת. This implies that both are the same.

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

“If he does not have a wound on his foot.” Therefore if he has a wound on his foot he may wear one. On which foot does he wear it? Samuel said, he wears it on the one which has no wound. If you would say that he wears it on the one which has the wound, how does he tie it that he could not put it on the other? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he wears it on the one which has the wound. Simeon bar Abba served Rebbi Joḥanan; he brought him his sandals as it was stated in Derekh Ereṣ: When he puts them on, he puts the right foot one on first and after this the left foot one, when he removes them he removes the left foot one and after this the right foot one. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, Babylonian, you should not act in this way for the earlier generations did not do this. But when he puts them on, he puts the left foot one on first and after this the right foot one, that the right side one should not look deficient. This implies that he wears it on the one which has the wound. He told him, yes, Babylonian, you got it.

We have stated: “Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” They stated in the House of Rebbi: Anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar follows our Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan follows what was stated in the House of Rebbi. But Rebbi Eliezer said, “anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” Therefore if he does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath is he not liable? Since Rav stated our Mishnah and explained it: who is the one who does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath? A child who was taken prisoner among the Gentiles. This implies that both versions are the same. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Therefore (if he does not) [if he did] know and forgot he is liable. Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that both versions are the same. They asked before Rebbi Yasa’s son: What did you hear from your father about Rebbi Yose? He said, following Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥizqiah told them, he did not say so. But Rebbi Simon bar Zavda was simply with Rebbi Yose’s son and heard from him following Rebbi Eliezer.

We have stated: “Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” They stated in the House of Rebbi: Anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Rebbi Eleazar follows our Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan follows what was stated in the House of Rebbi. But Rebbi Eliezer said, “anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” Therefore if he does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath is he not liable? Since Rav stated our Mishnah and explained it: who is the one who does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath? A child who was taken prisoner among the Gentiles. This implies that both versions are the same. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Therefore (if he does not) [if he did] know and forgot he is liable. Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that both versions are the same. They asked before Rebbi Yasa’s son: What did you hear from your father about Rebbi Yose? He said, following Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥizqiah told them, he did not say so. But Rebbi Simon bar Zavda was simply with Rebbi Yose’s son and heard from him following Rebbi Eliezer.