implies

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: Then one who removes should not be liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : One who removes is not liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but it was stated there, an individual who removed the volume of an olive from a group is liable but he did not disqualify himself as a member of the group. This implies, even if he did not eat. If you would say, he ate, why did he not disqualify himself as a member of the group? Rebbi Yose said, when he removed it he disqualified it. Even if he ate, he ate something disqualified. Where was this said? There is breaking after breaking but not removing after removing. Either this means that when he removes it, he disqualifies it, or it means that he is not liable up to the moment when he eats.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb”?

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

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “For the menstruating woman one slaughters on her eighth day. For a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman one slaughters on his seventh day.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman is pure on his seventh day.

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse, I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

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

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

The traders of Jerusalem used to say, “come and buy spices for the meritorious deed.” The family of Issy in the same of Issy: Why is it called “pounded”? Because one pounds for it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it has to be thick. His word implies that it is a remembrance of the mortar. There are Tannaim who state, it has to be soft. This word implies that it is a remembrance of the blood.

The traders of Jerusalem used to say, “come and buy spices for the meritorious deed.” The family of Issy in the same of Issy: Why is it called “pounded”? Because one pounds for it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it has to be thick. His word implies that it is a remembrance of the mortar. There are Tannaim who state, it has to be soft. This word implies that it is a remembrance of the blood.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct? And he accepted it from him. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”. Since (breaking the neck) is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke] is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread.] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt, “taking” is mentioned for lulav. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle, so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle.] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct? And he accepted it from him. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”. Since (breaking the neck) is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke] is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread.] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt, “taking” is mentioned for lulav. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle, so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle.] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked, how was the tenth of an epha brought? Was it brought half or [brought] whole? Since it is written, Moses and Aaron came to the Tent of Meeting, this teaches that he only came with him to teach him the work of incense. [This implies that] half it was brought. If you are saying that it was brought whole, one should have stated, about he work of incense and the tenth of an epha. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said, are we not concerned with service inside? He already had taught him about service outside.

There, we have stated: “These take away and those put down. And the hand of one is close to the hand of the other, for it is said, before Me always.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s. But according to Rebbi Joḥanan does Rebbi Meïr agree that if they removed the old set in the morning and arranged the new set in the evening this is also “always”. “Rebbi Yose says, also these may remove and those put down; for this also is ‘always’.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose inferred this from the sitting of Aaron and his sons. As you are saying, at the sitting of Aaron and his sons it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day, so here it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yose said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. What does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph say about the sitting of Aaron and his sons?, Since if there, where it is written “always”, you are saying that it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night, here where it is not written “always” not so much more? You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there were seven erections and six dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion here were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. It was stated: “All seven days of initiation did Moses anoint the Tabernacle, erected and dismantled it, and performed in it the services. On the eighth day, he erected it and did not dismantle. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, on the eighth day also he erected, anointed, and dismantled.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that erection in the night is invalid for service during the day. You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were 21 erections and 20 dismantlings.

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; with the anointing oil. From where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.”

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

How, either within four cubits of the ramp or four cubits of the altar? Since we have stated, “It happened that two were equally running up the ramp,” this implies within four cubits of the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explicitly did Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he who is first within four cubits of the altar got the right to do it.”

“One does not show a thumb in the Temple,” because of the tricksters. One does not say from whom in the Temple, but the overseer lifts the cap of one of them and they know that the lottery (proceeds) [starts] from there. Should we not worry, maybe for a friend or a relative? They formed a snail. How was the lottery proceeding, to the right or to the left? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since we did state, the one winning the incense says to the one on his right side, you are with me with the pan, this implies that it proceeded to the right. The students of Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hilfai: It is as follows. The lottery proceeds to the left, the winner adds to the right. It is preferable that one should win over whom the lottery passed twice, rather than one over whom the lottery passed only once.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Incense which was extinguished becomes defective even in carats; for consumption is written only for the external altar. A wick which was extinguished needs replacement. Immediately? The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, first it needs to be cooled. Does the oil have to be replaced? The word of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac implies that oil has to be replaced. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, now on the winter solstice half a log for each light, on the summer solstice half a log for each light? Rebbi Yose said, from this you cannot conclude anything, as we have stated there, “Ben Bevay for the skeins”, he was threading the wicks.

HALAKHAH: They shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; I could think, two hundred. Rebbi Aqiba said, anywhere you could understand many or you could understand few, if you took the many you took nothing, if you took few you took. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, two measures; one finite, the other infinite. Everybody measures with the finite measure, but nobody measures with the infinite measure. Rebbi Nehemiah said, does the verse come to open or to lock in? It does not come to lock in but to open. If you are saying days are ten, they could be 100 or 200 or 1’000 or 10’000. But if you say days are two, you did unlock. Rebbi Muna said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah. Days are two. I could think that days are many. If they are many, why is it said, many? Therefore the verse only spoke of few days. How much are they? It means two; many are three. I could think that many (days) means ten. It says days and it says many. Since the minimum of days are two, so for many, the minimum of many are three. I could think that two and three make five. But is it said, days [and many]? It only is said, many days. How is this? These many should be more than two. How many are they? It implies three.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. There, we have stated: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them] and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them] saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they were engraved.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams.

If he slaughtered and died. May the other enter with his blood. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, with a bull, but not with its blood. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both are saying, even with the blood. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies even with the blood. For Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , even with the blood. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, if he took a fistful and then died, may one enter with his fistful? Why does he question his fistful? For it is written, his fistful, but here it is not written “his blood”. It is obvious for him, even with the blood.

Rebbi Eleazar said, limbs and fat which were not consumed before the evening one builds into a pyre and burns them separately; for them one pushes aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba: The Mishnah implies this: “Every day there were four arrangements.” What does one understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, “and this day five”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: May something which is not obstructive push aside? He answered him, there are the witnesses for the New Moon who are not obstructive and push aside, as we have stated there: “for a distance of a night and day one desecrates the Sabbath and comes for testimony of the New Moon.”

HALAKHAH: “They brought him the cup,” etc. But was it not already stated, “he took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar”? So is the Mishnah: The cup and the bowl. What is a כַּף? A tureen. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that it is a profane vessel. If you would say, a sanctified vessel, may something sanctified in a vessel be redeemed?

There, you are saying, his full handful, with his handful, and here you are saying, his full handful. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since there a deficient handful is disqualified, here also a deficient handful is disqualified. Are his fists considered vessels of service to sanctify? May another person take the fistful and puts it in his fist? Should it be made to measure for his fists? Do you estimate for all possible fists or you estimate for his fist only? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked: If he took a fistful and died, may another person enter with his fistful? If you are saying that they did not consider his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may enter with his fistful; another person may take the fistful and put it in his fist; one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists. If you are saying that they considered his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may not enter with his fistful; another person may not take the fistful and put in his fist; one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists.

There, you are saying, his full handful, with his handful, and here you are saying, his full handful. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since there a deficient handful is disqualified, here also a deficient handful is disqualified. Are his fists considered vessels of service to sanctify? May another person take the fistful and puts it in his fist? Should it be made to measure for his fists? Do you estimate for all possible fists or you estimate for his fist only? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked: If he took a fistful and died, may another person enter with his fistful? If you are saying that they did not consider his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may enter with his fistful; another person may take the fistful and put it in his fist; one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists. If you are saying that they considered his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may not enter with his fistful; another person may not take the fistful and put in his fist; one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists.

Everybody agrees about the bull of the anointed and the community that it need not touch. Where do they disagree? About the bull and the he-goat of the day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, it needs to touch. There are Tannaim: it does not need to touch. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome full of drops of blood. I said, these are of the blood sprinkled on it on the Day of Atonement. This implies that it needs to touch. [Even if you say that it does not need to touch], (but) if it touched, it touched.

If one gave from a sanctified vessel to a profane vessel he disqualified. Does this imply that from a sanctified vessel to a sanctified vessel it remains qualified? Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, the Mishnah implies this: “He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat. Rebbi Mana said, could we say, the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in an empty vessel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he poured the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in a full vessel; after that he again mixes them into another vessel to make a perfect mixture.

The colleagues say, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other. Everybody agrees about the bull of the Anointed or the community, unless there be one giving of each of them. The colleagues say, qualified parts which were mixed up with disqualified parts, only if there was a giving of the qualified. Where do they disagree? About the blood of two purification sacrifices which were mixed up. Rebbi says, I am saying one investigates the blood; if there is enough for one giving for each one it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. But the Sages say, even if there is only one giving [for both of them] it is qualified. In Rebbi’s opinion, there is a measure for givings, in the Sages’ opinion there is no measure for givings. This implies, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other.

Two Cohanim escaped the wars. One said, I was standing and purifying; the other one said, I was walking and purifying. Rebbi Yudan said, this implies, he who does it one way does not worry, and he who does it the other way does not worry.

Rebbi Shammai said, a baraita implies that the remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “The lower ones, if given on the upper did not placate since nothing of them is brought on the upper, should you not say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they placate since something of them is brought below? The inner ones shall prove, since some of them is given outside, but if he gave them outside it did not placate, since the altar did not cleanse them, what should you say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they should placate since the horns cleanse them. Since the horns cleanse them, if he gave them below it should be qualified. The verse says it, that he give the blood on the upper, but not that he give in the lower.” What does it mean, “the altar did not cleanse them”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not cleanse them to turn them into remainders; only through the beams and the gobelins they become remainders.

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden] altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers.

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden] altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers.

If they are equal in price but unequal in value, the he-goats are not as commanded; equal in value but not equal in price, the he-goats are as commanded. Better in its body or better in its looks, what is preferable? Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say that we may understand it from the following: Of cut greenish and dry uncut, cut greenish is preferable. This implies, better in its body [or better in its looks], better in its body is preferable.

HALAKHAH: He shall send him by a man, to qualify the non-Cohen. Timely. that he be ready; timely, that he be prepared. Timely, even on the Sabbath; timely, even in impurity. Can he be not ready but prepared? But that he should not send him by two people. If he sent him by two people, does he make clothing impure? Let us hear from the following: And the one who sends; not who was sending the one who sends. This implies that if he sent him by two people, it does not make clothing impure.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If of bulls and he-goats to be burned a limb left which completes a majority? His question implies that the matter depends on a majority. The following is obvious: If most of it left and after this a limb left which completes a majority. [This must be: It left limb by limb and after this a limb left which completes a majority..]

And he who burns. Not the one who starts the fire, and not the one who prepares the stake. Who is he who burns? That is the one who helps during the burning. [Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the one who helps during the burning] makes his garments impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who turns over an olive-sized piece makes his garments impure. The problem is only one who stands inside and in his hand is a beam with which he turns over an olive-sized piece, [what is the rule]? Let us hear from the following: And he shall take out, and he shall burn. Since one who takes out, only after he took to the outside, also he who burns only if he burns outside. There Ḥizqiah said, he shall be impure until the evening; to include him who burns. Here it is the same.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ancillary services are performed in white garments. Rebbi Mattanah said, the Mishnah implies this: “otherwise in his own white stole.” Rebbi Yose asked: Why? Even though they are outside? Is not slaughter only outside and is performed in golden garments? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he wants, he performs in golden garments, if he wants, he performs in white garments. We find that slaughter, if he wants, he performs in golden garments, if he wants, he performs in white garments.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose said, this implies that (he) [one] has to squeeze its empty space since otherwise one should have stated, “it, its pit, and its empty space.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated, a date from Nimrin.

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

HALAKHAH: The elevation offering atones for thoughts. What is the reason? What rises in your spirits will not be. Rebbi Levi said, What rises in your spirits will not be. And so Job says, he got up early in the morning and brought elevation offerings in the number of all of them, etc. [This implies that the elevation offering atones for thoughts.]

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are the periods of birth. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: That animals be available for the pilgrims on the holidays. Rebbi Yudan said, that he should not come to do not tarry. Rebbi Yose said, anybody who is late with his ṭevel transgresses. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. Could Ben Azzai decide between his students? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “you come to find us disagreement”?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they are the periods of birth. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: That animals be available for the pilgrims on the holidays. Rebbi Yudan said, that he should not come to do not tarry. Rebbi Yose said, anybody who is late with his ṭevel transgresses. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. Could Ben Azzai decide between his students? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, “you come to find us disagreement”?

There, we have stated: “Any born from the first of Tishre until the 29 of Elul combine; five before New Year’s day and five after New Year’s day do not combine. Five before the threshing floor and five after the threshing floor do combine.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the rules of animal tither are neither like those of germinating nor like those of a third. If you would say like germinating, it should state, all whose pregnancy starts from the 29 of Elul. If you would say like a third, it should state, up to the 22. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Like the third, they made it following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, {an animal} before its time enters the corral to be tithed. Rebbi Mana met Rebbi Shammai; he asked him, did you say that? He told him, yes. He answered, but did we not state, “Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Not even if it was born up to the 29 of Elul? Could you say that Ben Azzai follows Rebbi Simeon? You have to say, he follows the rabbis. Just as you say following the rabbis, he leaves them for the next year and they will be tithed with the others of their year, so you have to say following ben Azzai, he leaves them for the next threshing floor and they will be tithed with those from Elul. Rebbi Huna said, this implies that the days of a firstling while he still is before its time are counted for its year. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah understood this from the following: Any male firstling which is born to your cattle and small cattle, etc. How is this? You count its year from the moment it is born.

There, we have stated: “Any born from the first of Tishre until the 29 of Elul combine; five before New Year’s day and five after New Year’s day do not combine. Five before the threshing floor and five after the threshing floor do combine.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the rules of animal tither are neither like those of germinating nor like those of a third. If you would say like germinating, it should state, all whose pregnancy starts from the 29 of Elul. If you would say like a third, it should state, up to the 22. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Like the third, they made it following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, {an animal} before its time enters the corral to be tithed. Rebbi Mana met Rebbi Shammai; he asked him, did you say that? He told him, yes. He answered, but did we not state, “Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Not even if it was born up to the 29 of Elul? Could you say that Ben Azzai follows Rebbi Simeon? You have to say, he follows the rabbis. Just as you say following the rabbis, he leaves them for the next year and they will be tithed with the others of their year, so you have to say following ben Azzai, he leaves them for the next threshing floor and they will be tithed with those from Elul. Rebbi Huna said, this implies that the days of a firstling while he still is before its time are counted for its year. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah understood this from the following: Any male firstling which is born to your cattle and small cattle, etc. How is this? You count its year from the moment it is born.

A cup mixed by how much? Rebbi Yose bar Bevin said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, let us hear from the following: “Water. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” This implies mixed as cups are mixed. What is the measure of cups? Rebbi Abun said, τέταρτρον is a quarter.

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

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

HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor] sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb. What are the libations for a mother sheep? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written, so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.

HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor] sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb. What are the libations for a mother sheep? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written, so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.

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

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.” What? Really dwellers or even appropriate for dwellers? Since an old man stated before Rebbi Ze`ira, “even the lower one is qualified,” there is nobody who says “even” if he does not agree with the preceding. This implies really dwellers.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is [four] wide. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements. But was not Rebbi Jeremiah {saying} in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is four wide? Therefore if they have been polished for implements everybody agrees that it is permitted. Since Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, if he used steps of ladders for roofing it is disqualified, and they are saying that he ruled according to Rebbi Meïr, this implies that both cases are the same. Since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements, therefore if it is four {hand-breadths} wide everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Now Rebbi Yasa ruled at the big assembly that one may use a cross-beam for the thatched roof, and they said that he ruled following Rebbi Jehudah, this implies that both cases are the same.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is [four] wide. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements. But was not Rebbi Jeremiah {saying} in the name of Rav: They disagree if it is four wide? Therefore if they have been polished for implements everybody agrees that it is permitted. Since Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, if he used steps of ladders for roofing it is disqualified, and they are saying that he ruled according to Rebbi Meïr, this implies that both cases are the same. Since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree if they have been polished for implements, therefore if it is four {hand-breadths} wide everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Now Rebbi Yasa ruled at the big assembly that one may use a cross-beam for the thatched roof, and they said that he ruled following Rebbi Jehudah, this implies that both cases are the same.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose said it only for Tabernacles, but in the matter of the Sabbath even Rebbi Yose agrees. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it is even for the Sabbath, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, a ruler came to Sepphoris and they suspended quilts; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose permitted carrying under them following his father’s argument. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina comes like Rebbi Ḥanania and both disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Ḥanania bar Aqabia all three said the same. Rebbi Jehudah of the open bridges, Rebbi Yose that of tabernacles, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia as it was stated Rebbi Ḥanania permitted three things, he permitted a balcony, and seaweed, and bringing bathtowels.

This implies, that the stars should be seen from inside. Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina, they stated this about the sun star.

“If he deposited it in a tree higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadths it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted.” This is difficult. If his eruv is a {valid} eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a {valid}eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten {hand-breadths}? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four {hand-breadths}. Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadths it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a {valid} eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a {valid} eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four {hand-breadths}, since one may tilt it and annul the public domain of it, it implies that his eruv is a {valid}eruv and it is permitted to move it.

“If he deposited it in a tree higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadths it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted.” This is difficult. If his eruv is a {valid} eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a {valid}eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten {hand-breadths}? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four {hand-breadths}. Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadths it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a {valid} eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a {valid} eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four {hand-breadths}, since one may tilt it and annul the public domain of it, it implies that his eruv is a {valid}eruv and it is permitted to move it.

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

HALAKHAH: Rav and Samuel. One said hallelu yah, and the other one said hallēluja. For him who said hallelu yah it is split but cannot be erased. For him who said hallelujah it may be erased but cannot be split. We do not know who said what. Since Rav said, I heard from my uncle, if somebody would give me a book of Psalms written by Rebbi Meïr I could erase all hallelujah in it since he did not intend to sanctify them. This implies that he said hallelujah. The words of the rabbis disagree, as Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the book of Psalms was said with ten expressions of praise, with “hail”, with “excellence”, with melody, with song, with chant, with instruction, with shout, with thanksgiving, with prayer, with blessing. The most beatific of all of them is hallelujah since both the Name and praise are contained in it.

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

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

“How the sukkah seven? If he finished eating one may not undo his sukkah but one removes his vessels after afternoon prayers in honor of the last day of the festival.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A person must make his sukkah invalid as long as it is still day. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a person must make Qiddush inside his house. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: If one made Qiddush in one house and changed his mind to eat in another house he must make Qiddush. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav (Hoshaiah): He who loves his sukkah makes Qiddush of the last holiday in his house and eats in his sukkah. Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. What Rav said was, if he did not have the intention to eat in another house. But what Samuel said was if he had the intention to eat in another house. Rebbi Mana said, Samuel comes like Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Hoshaiah like Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Rebbi Immi, this implies that they disagree explicitly.

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

HALAKHAH: It was stated: No less than seven and no more than sixteen. This Tanna considers blowing straight, modulated, and straight as one unit; the other Tanna considers each single one of them as a unit. You find to say, three for each tribe; Rebbi Jehudah says, three for each standard. But it was stated, and nine at the tenth step. That is another one. He who has “three on top of the altar” does not have “at the tenth step;” he who has “at the tenth step” does not have “three on top of the altar”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that they only blew the trumpet at the water libation. If you are saying, for the drawings, one should state, three for drawing water today, and three for drawing water for tomorrow. Are these it? Are there not others, nine for musaf on the Sabbath, nine for the musaf on a New Moon, and nine for the musaf of the New Year’s day holiday? But it must follow him who said, they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Even following him who said they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices, they were adding modulated sounds, they were not adding straight tones.

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

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. [This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba] and Ben Azzai decides between his students. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, [“since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher,] “you come to find us disagreement”, etc?

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. [This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba] and Ben Azzai decides between his students. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, [“since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher,] “you come to find us disagreement”, etc?

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. [This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba] and Ben Azzai decides between his students. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, [“since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher,] “you come to find us disagreement”, etc?

There, we have stated: “Any born from the first of Tishre until the 29 of Elul combine; five before New Year’s day and five after New Year’s day do not combine. Five before the threshing floor and five after the threshing floor do combine.” “Then why did they say, there are three threshing floors for animal tithe? Because up to the time of the threshing floor one is permitted to sell or slaughter. From the time of the threshing floor he may not slaughter, but if he slaughtered he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the rules of animal tithe are neither like those of germinating nor like those of a third. If you would say like germinating, it should state, all whose pregnancy starts from the 29th of Elul. If you would say like a third, it should state, up to the 22nd. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Like the third, they made it following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, {an animal} before its time enters the corral to be tithed. Rebbi Mana met Rebbi Shammai; he asked him, did you say that? But did we not state, “Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Not even if it was born up to the 29th of Elul? Could you say that Ben Azzai follows Rebbi Simeon? You have to say, he follows the rabbis. Just as you say following the rabbis, he leaves them for the next year and they will be tithed with the others of their year, so you have to say following ben Azzai, he leaves them for the next threshing floor and they will be tithed with those from Elul. Rebbi Huna said, this implies that the days of a firstling while he still is before its time are counted for its year. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah understood this from the following: Any male firstling which isborn to your cattle and small cattle dedicate to the Eternal, your God.. How is this? You count its year from the moment it is born.

There, we have stated: “Any born from the first of Tishre until the 29 of Elul combine; five before New Year’s day and five after New Year’s day do not combine. Five before the threshing floor and five after the threshing floor do combine.” “Then why did they say, there are three threshing floors for animal tithe? Because up to the time of the threshing floor one is permitted to sell or slaughter. From the time of the threshing floor he may not slaughter, but if he slaughtered he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the rules of animal tithe are neither like those of germinating nor like those of a third. If you would say like germinating, it should state, all whose pregnancy starts from the 29th of Elul. If you would say like a third, it should state, up to the 22nd. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Like the third, they made it following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, {an animal} before its time enters the corral to be tithed. Rebbi Mana met Rebbi Shammai; he asked him, did you say that? But did we not state, “Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Not even if it was born up to the 29th of Elul? Could you say that Ben Azzai follows Rebbi Simeon? You have to say, he follows the rabbis. Just as you say following the rabbis, he leaves them for the next year and they will be tithed with the others of their year, so you have to say following ben Azzai, he leaves them for the next threshing floor and they will be tithed with those from Elul. Rebbi Huna said, this implies that the days of a firstling while he still is before its time are counted for its year. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah understood this from the following: Any male firstling which isborn to your cattle and small cattle dedicate to the Eternal, your God.. How is this? You count its year from the moment it is born.

HALAKHAH: To whom did he send? Since it was stated, Rebbi Joshua said, it would have been better for me would I be sick in bed and Rabban Gamliel had not sent this, it implies that he sent to Rebbi Joshua. Through whom did he send? Since it was stated, in the following expression he said to him, Aqiba, you consoled me, it implies that he sent through Rebbi Aqiba. What should he have inferred? Rebbi Yose said, we know that if they sanctified it without witnesses it is sanctified. For what does he testify? “For if they sanctified it and then the witnesses were found perjured, it is sanctified.” But did we not state, “it happened that more than 40 couples passed by and Rebbi Aqiba held them back in Lydda”? Because they are 40 couples. But if it had been a single couple he would not have held them back.

HALAKHAH: To whom did he send? Since it was stated, Rebbi Joshua said, it would have been better for me would I be sick in bed and Rabban Gamliel had not sent this, it implies that he sent to Rebbi Joshua. Through whom did he send? Since it was stated, in the following expression he said to him, Aqiba, you consoled me, it implies that he sent through Rebbi Aqiba. What should he have inferred? Rebbi Yose said, we know that if they sanctified it without witnesses it is sanctified. For what does he testify? “For if they sanctified it and then the witnesses were found perjured, it is sanctified.” But did we not state, “it happened that more than 40 couples passed by and Rebbi Aqiba held them back in Lydda”? Because they are 40 couples. But if it had been a single couple he would not have held them back.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one who heard part of a straight sound from one who was practicing did [not] fulfill his obligation. And where is this said? “If he blew straight for the first set and continued a double length for the second he has only one in his hand.” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Not even one is in his hand. Why? The beginning combines with the end and the end combines with the beginning. The first part has no end and the second part has no beginning.

They were blowing before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi on a fast day. Rebbi Yose asked, should they not blow before him with trumpets? He had not heard what was stated, trumpets in the Temple, no trumpets in the countryside. Should they not pray 24 before him? As the following, Rebbi Joḥanan on the Ninth of Av was praying 24 but ordered his students, do not learn this action from me; because it was a problem for him whether it was mourning or a public fast day. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is not a public fast day. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is mourning, it is not a public fast day. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the case of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that a person prays four [times] of the Ninth of Av. He only said four, but not 24.

“Powers” are counted as verses of kingdom, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they do not count. “Powers” and “kingdoms” are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Jehudah says, they do not. Sing to God, sing; sing to our King, sing, are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they are not. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, do they disagree about it and the sequel, or do they disagree about this text itself? Since it was stated, everybody agrees about God is King over nations that it is one, this implies that they disagree about it and the sequel. Lift, o gates, your heads, and be raised, eternal doors; etc., Lift, o gates, your heads, and rise, eternal doors, etc. The first is counted as one and the second as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose said, the first as two and the second as three.

At one place one blows, at one place one says musaf. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to the one who blows; there are Tannaim who state, to the one who says musaf. He who said, he goes to the one who blows, if there is no time left to blow; he who said, he goes to the one who says musaf, if there is time left to blow. Let us hear from the following, what Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: At one place one blows, at one place one says musaf, he goes to the one who blows and does not go to the one who says musaf. And who said the following? On a New Year’s Day which falls on a Sabbath, at one place one blows, at one place one says musaf, he goes to the one who says musaf and does not go to the one who blows. Why? Because everybody knows how to blow but not everybody known how to say musaf. Another explanation: A person frees another from his obligation in blowing; a person does not free another from his obligation in prayer. And is a New Year’s Day which falls on a Sabbath not a day where there is no time left to blow? And you are saying, he goes to the one who says musaf? This implies that they disagree.

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

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

“It happened that Hillel the Elder brought his elevation offering to the Temple courtyard and leaned on it. The students of Shammai ganged up on him. He started to wag its tail, said to them, look, it is a female and I brought it as well-being sacrifice, and kept them talking about other matters until they left. After some time the House of Shammai became strong and they wanted to fix practice following their words. There was there Bava ben Bitay from the students of the House of Shammai who realized that practice followed the House of Hillel. Once he entered the Temple courtyard and found it desolate. He said, the house of those who make our God’s House desolate shall be desolate. What did he do? He sent and brought 3’000 sheep from Qedar sheep, checked them for defects, and displayed them on the Temple Mount. He said to them, listen to me my brothers, the House of Israel. Anybody who wants to bring an elevation sacrifice may bring it and lean on it, to bring a well-being sacrifice may bring it and lean on it. At that moment, practice was fixed following the House of Hillel; and nobody said anything.” Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, (this implies) <this cup> for breakfast has to be full; the (poison) <worm> in the wood comes from itself; any coal which does not cause a burn at the start will not cause one. “Again it happened that a student of Hillel brought his elevation offering to the Temple courtyard and leaned on it. A student of Shammai saw him and said to him, what is this leaning-on? He said to him, what about being silent? He silenced him by a reprimand and he left.”

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. Since Rav once 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.

It was stated: If an amphora of ṭevel became defective one brings another vessel and puts it under it. If it is filled, it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one makes an uncommon arrangement for muqseh to save it. But did we not state, from the vat of grapes, from the load of olives [which drew fluid] one may not take on the holiday, and is it not necessary to say on the Sabbath? Rav Ḥisda said, even though both of them are tevel, this is muqṣeh and that is not muqṣeh. The following implies that one makes an uncommon arrangement for muqseh to save it. [It was stated.] If a light burned out, one saves its oil. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s since Rebbi Simeon said, if it burned out it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, he mentioned only “to move it,” therefore one is permitted to save it.

It was stated: If an amphora of ṭevel became defective one brings another vessel and puts it under it. If it is filled, it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one makes an uncommon arrangement for muqseh to save it. But did we not state, from the vat of grapes, from the load of olives [which drew fluid] one may not take on the holiday, and is it not necessary to say on the Sabbath? Rav Ḥisda said, even though both of them are tevel, this is muqṣeh and that is not muqṣeh. The following implies that one makes an uncommon arrangement for muqseh to save it. [It was stated.] If a light burned out, one saves its oil. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s since Rebbi Simeon said, if it burned out it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, he mentioned only “to move it,” therefore one is permitted to save it.

Why did they say that one does not climb on a tree? Is it lest he forget and eat, or maybe lest he forget and shake it? Let us hear from the following: If he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend. This implies, lest he forget and shake it.

Why did they say, if he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend? The colleagues say, maybe the animal will (be girded, be nursing) [be damaged]. Rebbi Yose said to them, think of it, if it was a large camel! Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is a difference, because he is commanded about the rest of his animals like his own: That your ox and your donkey rest; like you. There are Tannaim who state, one may lean on an animal. There are Tannaim who state, one may not lean on an animal. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one may lean on, if he is healthy; he who said one may not lean on, if he is weak. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and the colleagues disagreed. One said, one may lean on, but the other said, one may not lean on. He who said one may lean on, if he leans a little bit; he who said one may not lean on, if he puts on his full weight. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose did not say anything in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this implies that a healthy person may lean on, a weak one may not lean on.

“Nor sail on water” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: This implies that it is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. And similarly, it is forbidden to set something under sail to bring it to him. Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting. They saw a person splitting the water to both sides and drinking. Rebbi Abba Mari said to Rebbi Mattaniah, this is what Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, a person is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. He answered, it is what we have stated, “a person may break open an amphora to eat dried figs from it”

“Nor clap the hands in joy.” טִיפּוּחַ is by his desire. Rebbi Jonah and the colleagues, one said this way it is permitted, the other way it is forbidden, but the other said, both ways it is forbidden. We did not know who said what, but since Rebbi Jonah said, in our days there were old men who were clapping the backs of their hands on the Sabbath; this implies that he said, this way it is permitted, the other way it is forbidden. Rebbi was marrying off his son Rebbi Simeon where they were clapping the backs of their hands on the Sabbath. Rebbi Meïr passed by and heard their sound. He said, our teachers, is the Sabbath permitted? Rebbi heard his voice; he said, who is that who comes to trouble us in our home? [There are those who are saying that he said so: who is the one who comes to hide us in our home?] Rebbi Meïr heard his voice and fled. They went out and ran after him running. The wind blew his turban from Rebbi Meïr’s neck. Rebbi peeked from the window and saw the neck of Rebbi Meïr from behind. He said, I attained learning only because I saw Rebbi Meïr’s neck from behind. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, we attained learning only because we saw Rebbi’s finger from [the back of his sleeve.]

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: A man may not preliminarily marry on a Friday. That means, to make an engagement feast. This implies that the preliminary marriage itself is permitted. Samuel says, even on the Ninth of Ab a preliminary marriage is permitted, lest another forestall him. The argument of Samuel seems inverted. There, he says, God puts singles in a house; To rise on scales; they all are of vapor! And here, he says so? That means, that he should not forestall him in prayer. Even so, it would not be permanent.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden [because of dedicating], and we have stated, “one does [not] dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.