implies

HALAKHAH: “This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything. If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse: “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.

“If one spat on him and the spit touched him.” How far does the spit have to reach? On his body, on his garments? But what is the rule if he spat and the spittle did not reach him? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that somebody who insults another person verbally is not liable.

Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that if he robbed a fattened animal and it became thin, he has to replace the fat. Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that if he robbed a thin animal and fattened it, he has to return it as is.

Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that if he robbed a fattened animal and it became thin, he has to replace the fat. Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that if he robbed a thin animal and fattened it, he has to return it as is.

Rebbi Samuel bar Abba objected before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did we not state: “Both the person who dedicates and the one who vows his own valuation exclude their wives’ and children’s clothing.” He answered, nobody thought to include their wives’ and children’s clothing. But did we not state: “My valuation on myself”; at the moment when he said, my valuation on myself, he only obligated himself for fifty tetradrachmas. If he says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge what is worn by my wife and children? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: One who says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge a particular thing, one cannot use that particular thing as a pledge. Rav Hoshaia in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This implies that one does not foreclose valuations from movables by biblical decree but only from the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.

HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.

HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.

HALAKHAH: “If he gave the money to Yehoiarib,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they disagree about two weeks, Rebbi Yose said about one week. He who said about two weeks, “if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi said, following Rebbi Jehudah’s words if the men from Yehoiarib offered the reparation offering there was no atonement; but the money should be transferred from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib; the men from Yehoiarib then shall offer the reparation offering for atonement.” This implies that one removes the money given to men of a watch not during their week. He who said that they disagree about one week, if he gave the money to Yehoiarib on Yedaiah’s watch and the reparation offering to Yedaiah on Yehoiarib’s watch, means that he did not fulfill his obligation, etc. This implies that one does not remove a sacrifice which men of a watch received during their week. But if the watch of the men of Yehoiarib dragged their feet, then the baraita implies that they dragged their feet after the men of Yehoiarib received the reparation offering after days, and there is no atonement. But one has to transfer the money from the men of Yedaiah to the men of Yehoiarib, the men of Yedaiah shall offer the reparation offering, and there will be atonement. This implies that if men of a watch received a sacrifice during their week but were lazy and did not offer it, one removes it from their hand.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: A stipulation produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwrtiting is invalid, for I am saying that he has trained in writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: A stipulation is only valid if it is in the possession of the creditor but written by the debtor. But did we not state: “That our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.” Therefore, it might be found paid. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it was a testamentary gift., since people are not likely to impair their testamentary gifts.

The following implies the same. Rebbi Ḥanina reports the following case: The elder rabbis bought a heap of wheat from the household of the general and found in it a bundle of denars. They returned it to them. They said, praised be the God of the Jews.

HALAKHAH: “Silver acquires gold,” etc. This is a summary of the matter: Anything worth less that the other acquires the other. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, who stated this? Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi. His father told him, change your opinion and state the following: “Gold acquires silver.” He told him, I do not change my opinion since when your faculties were unimpaired, you instructed me to state: “Silver acquires gold.” The word of Rebbi implies that gold is like produce. The Mishnah implies that silver is like produce. [Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita implies that gold is like produce, but his word implies that silver is like produce, as in the following:] The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter lent denars to Rav. She came and asked her father, who told her: Take from him good and full weight denars. Do we learn from Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter? Rebbi Idi said, also Abba, Samuel’s father, asked before Rebbi: May one lend denars against denars? He answered him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, also Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both instruct: It is permitted to lend denars against denars. Qerat against qerat is permitted, lekan against lekan is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “Silver acquires gold,” etc. This is a summary of the matter: Anything worth less that the other acquires the other. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, who stated this? Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi. His father told him, change your opinion and state the following: “Gold acquires silver.” He told him, I do not change my opinion since when your faculties were unimpaired, you instructed me to state: “Silver acquires gold.” The word of Rebbi implies that gold is like produce. The Mishnah implies that silver is like produce. [Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita implies that gold is like produce, but his word implies that silver is like produce, as in the following:] The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter lent denars to Rav. She came and asked her father, who told her: Take from him good and full weight denars. Do we learn from Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter? Rebbi Idi said, also Abba, Samuel’s father, asked before Rebbi: May one lend denars against denars? He answered him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, also Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both instruct: It is permitted to lend denars against denars. Qerat against qerat is permitted, lekan against lekan is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “Silver acquires gold,” etc. This is a summary of the matter: Anything worth less that the other acquires the other. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, who stated this? Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi. His father told him, change your opinion and state the following: “Gold acquires silver.” He told him, I do not change my opinion since when your faculties were unimpaired, you instructed me to state: “Silver acquires gold.” The word of Rebbi implies that gold is like produce. The Mishnah implies that silver is like produce. [Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita implies that gold is like produce, but his word implies that silver is like produce, as in the following:] The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter lent denars to Rav. She came and asked her father, who told her: Take from him good and full weight denars. Do we learn from Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter? Rebbi Idi said, also Abba, Samuel’s father, asked before Rebbi: May one lend denars against denars? He answered him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, also Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both instruct: It is permitted to lend denars against denars. Qerat against qerat is permitted, lekan against lekan is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “Silver acquires gold,” etc. This is a summary of the matter: Anything worth less that the other acquires the other. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, who stated this? Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi. His father told him, change your opinion and state the following: “Gold acquires silver.” He told him, I do not change my opinion since when your faculties were unimpaired, you instructed me to state: “Silver acquires gold.” The word of Rebbi implies that gold is like produce. The Mishnah implies that silver is like produce. [Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita implies that gold is like produce, but his word implies that silver is like produce, as in the following:] The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter lent denars to Rav. She came and asked her father, who told her: Take from him good and full weight denars. Do we learn from Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter? Rebbi Idi said, also Abba, Samuel’s father, asked before Rebbi: May one lend denars against denars? He answered him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, also Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both instruct: It is permitted to lend denars against denars. Qerat against qerat is permitted, lekan against lekan is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “Just as there is cheating in trade,” etc. “One may not put on make-up.” Rebbi Eudaimon the salt dealer was mollifying his spread. Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, did we not state: “one may not put on make up”? His word implies that there is make-up on food. Rebbi Ze‘ira was working with flax. He went to Rebbi Abbahu and asked him, may I make my work look good? He told him, go and apply all you know. Rebbi Abbahu was working on those shawls. He came to ask Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, how am I with those shawls? He told him, go and apply all you know. Rebbi Abba painted a bathtub. Rebbi Jacob from Emmaus stated: What means: “one may not put on make up”? One may not say to him, paint yourself.

“If somebody gives money to another to buy produce with for half the gain, the trader is permitted to buy any kind he wants, but he should not buy a garment or wood.” Rebbi Isaac said, this implies that if one who leaves another’s capital unemployed, he only has a complaint on him. If he leaves another’s field unused, he is obligated to serve him. If he leaves another’s ship or store unused, what [is the rule]?

HALAKHAH: “One who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Isaac said, this implies that if one lets another’s money lie idle, the other only has a complaint against him. If one lets another’s field lie idly, he has to compensate him adequately. If one lets another’s ship or store lie idly, what is the rule?

HALAKHAH: “If the ground floor and the upper floor,” etc. But if the owner of the ground floor wants to build and the owner of the upper floor does not, may he tell him: seal it? Let us hear from the following: “If his collapsed building was next to another’s collapsed building, and he rebuilt without permission, he computes his actual expenses and he has to pay him all his expenses.” This implies that he cannot tell him, seal it on the side. Just as he cannot tell him, seal it on the side, so he cannot tell him, seal it on top.

Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that the perjurer is not disqualified by the court.

The conditions which Joshua imposed. Rebbi Levi ben Birai in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: four. One may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. There, we have stated: “Or fenugreek where grasses appeared, one does not require him to weed.” So is the Mishnah: One does not require him to uproot. As one of Joshua’s conditions you say, one may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where it is forbidden because of robbery. This implies that he does not want them. He said, there if he sowed it to make sheaves, but here when he sowed it for seeds. Did Joshua made conditions for the benefit of sinners? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him. And he mentions a vineyard field, as Rebbi Yannai said: all spontaneous growth is forbidden except for what appears on a fallow field, or a field ready to be ploughed under, a vineyard or a field grown for seeds. A fallow field, for he does not care. A field ready to be ploughed under, for he wants to improve his field. A vineyard, not to forbid his vineyard. A field grown for seeds, for he does not want it; and if you say he does, he would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him.

There, we have stated: “If somebody find a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him and his surroundings.” And how much? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, this is not reasonable; it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you would say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field, would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, it follows him who said, it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation; I am saying that he was buried on a permitted path. But whould one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent.

HALAKHAH: “If the house collapsed on him and his father,” etc. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this implies that Ben Azzai was a colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba.

There is no lengthening of the month, but sanctification of the month. Samuel says, sanctification of the month needs no less than ten [participants]120. Should Fellows be able to enter for the sanctification of the month? Rebbi Hoshaia said, I was a Fellow and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac took me to the sanctification of the month, but I do not know whether I was counted or not. It is obvious that he was not counted, but why? Was it because he was his son-in-law, or because Fellows are nor able to enter for the sanctification of the month? Rebbi Cahana said, I was a Fellow when Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya took me to the sanctification of the month and I was counted. This implies that Fellows enter for the sanctification of the month.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest judges and one judges him,” etc. One understands that he judges. Why does one judge him? Can he not appoint a plenipotentiary? Think of it, if an oath should be imposed on him, may a plenipotentiary take the oath? His monetary suits are heard by how many? By 23, as we understand from the following: “The king may not sit in the Synhedrion, neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana, one said the king does not sit in the Synhedrion because of suspicion; he cannot participate in intercalations because of suspicion. Neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations since it is not to the king’s honor to sit with seven, so much less with three. This implies that his monetary suits are heard by 23.

HALAKHAH: “If he consoles others,” etc. This implies that a footstool is not meant by “overturning the couch.” The High Priest is obligated to overturn his couch.

HALAKHAH: “If a relative of his died, he does not leave his palace.” This implies that a dargesh is included in overturning one’s bed. The king is not required to overturn his bed.

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge; the congregation shall save. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?

From where two witnesses? He and another make two. Or following Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

Could one not judge him on Fridays, pass sentence on the Sabbath, and execute him after the Sabbath? If you say so, it turns out that his judgment is delayed. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, could he not be judged on the Sabbath, have his sentence passed on the Sabbath, and be executed on the Sabbath? Temple service, which supersedes Sabbath prohibitions, is pushed aside by obligatory executions, since it is said, from My altar take him to be executed. Therefore the Sabbath, which is pushed aside by Temple service, logically should be pushed aside by obligatory executions. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This implies that courts may not sit on the Sabbath; what is the reason? It is said here, in all your dwellings, and it is said there, these shall be for you legal procedures for your generations in all your dwellings. Since there the verse refers to courts, so also here the verse refers to courts.

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

Rebbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rebbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation. Rebbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “preliminarily married” implies stoning. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled.

Rebbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rebbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation. Rebbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “preliminarily married” implies stoning. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled.

HALAKHAH: “The order of beheading,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that there is no death uglier than this but the Torah said, in their statutes you shall not walk.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, also it was stated thus: One shall murder the murderer, the way he murdered. I could think that if he killed with a sword, one should kill him with a sword, with a rod one should kill him with a rod? Avenging is written here, and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. I could think that he should kill him between the arms? It is said here, you shall eliminate the evil from your midst, and it is said there, you shall eliminate the innocent blood from your midst. Elimination, elimination; breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since elimination here is at the neck, also there it is at the neck. Since breaking the neck there implies chopping off the head, also here chopping off the head.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: This implies that one proceeds on the basis of a doubt. How is this? “X killed a person.” One proceeds to try him until his witnesses come. Rebbi Yose said to him, does one arrest a person in the market and insult him? But is it as follows: “X killed a person, and there are witnesses.” Let him be put under arrest until his witnesses come.

Does one rend his garment nowadays? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When blasphemers proliferated, they stopped rending. Does one rend for substitute names today? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was travelling on the highway. He met a Samaritan who was repeatedly blaspheming, and he was rending. He dismounted from the donkey and gave him a blow on his heart saying to him: Samaritan! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? [His word] This implies that one rends for substitute names and rends his garments at the present time.

Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports him who said, the necromancer is the one who raises by his masculinity. What is the reason? Please apply necromancer’s magic and raise for me whom I shall tell you. What do you understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, it implies that she was competent in many ways. What about it? Your voice will be from the earth like that of a necromancer.

If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it, etc.. And it is written: A man who would compound like it, etc. This implies that for two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When in the Future World the proselytes come, Antoninus comes at the head of all of them. How do you understand this? Since they saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement, what do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus. There is information that Antoninus did not become a proselyte, and there is information that Antoninus did become a proselyte. Antoninus came to Rebbi and asked him, can you see me eating from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat in the World to Come? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it. This implies that Antoninus did not become a proselyte. When he heard this, he went and became a proselyte. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? This implies that Antoninus became a proselyte. Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. Antoninus came to Rebbi; he said to him, pray for me. He said to him, may He save you from the cold, as it is written, who can withstand His cold? He said, is that not a superfluous prayer? You cover yourself with an outer garment and the cold will go away. He said to him, may He save you from the hot wind that comes into the world. He said, that is a prayer; may your prayer be heard, as it is written, nothing is hidden from His heat.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: When in the Future World the proselytes come, Antoninus comes at the head of all of them. How do you understand this? Since they saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement, what do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus. There is information that Antoninus did not become a proselyte, and there is information that Antoninus did become a proselyte. Antoninus came to Rebbi and asked him, can you see me eating from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat in the World to Come? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it. This implies that Antoninus did not become a proselyte. When he heard this, he went and became a proselyte. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? This implies that Antoninus became a proselyte. Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. Antoninus came to Rebbi; he said to him, pray for me. He said to him, may He save you from the cold, as it is written, who can withstand His cold? He said, is that not a superfluous prayer? You cover yourself with an outer garment and the cold will go away. He said to him, may He save you from the hot wind that comes into the world. He said, that is a prayer; may your prayer be heard, as it is written, nothing is hidden from His heat.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.”

From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened, secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.”

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

The elevation offering atones for thoughts. What is the reason? What rises in your spirits will not be. Rebbi Levi said, the elevation offering atones for your spirits. And so in Job he says, maybe my children sinned and cursed God in their hearts. This implies that the elevation offering atones for thoughts.

HALAKHAH: “Together Israel, Cohanim,” etc. But we did not state “the Anointed.” Why did we not state “the Anointed”? If you say that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice, it is correct not to state “Anointed”. If you say about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, why do we not state “Anointed”? It was found stated “also the Anointed Priest.” This implies that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say, about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, if it was done intentionally. As you say, intentionally it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement, here also it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement.

HALAKHAH: “The kinds of awareness of impurity,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is obvious about the last awareness, until he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Is the same true for the first awareness? Let us hear from the following: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, walked on the second one, and entered the Sanctuary; he is liable and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, we thought that one could say that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said this if he was certain that he was impure, he had forgotten the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. But not if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure, he was oblivious of the Sanctuary and entered the Sanctuary. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary: this implies even if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness. Since at a time when he does not know whether he was impure or pure you say it is certain knowledge, if he knows for certain that he is impure but does not know whether he is liable for a sacrifice then certainly this should be awareness.

They objected, there is no extirpation for larceny and it was stated! We come to state only things which cannot become permitted after being forbidden. Oaths may become permitted after being forbidden. This implies that there are no categories of work for the day of Atonement, for if anybody violated all of them in one forgetting he is liable only for one [sacrifice] for all of them. But if anybody violated each of them separately, would he not be liable for each single one?

This is the principle: One flogs for any prohibition involving an action, but one does not flog if there is no action except for one who substitutes, or swears, or curses a fellow man by the Name. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This does not include one who substitutes; substituting implies speech and action. From where one who swears falsely? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: For the Eternal will not cleanse; but the judges will cleanse him. From where one who cursed his fellow man by the Name? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: To fear the Name, etc. The one who swears falsely in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he swore falsely, he does not fear. The one who cursed his fellow man by the Name in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he cursed, he does not fear. What is the difference between them? If one swore falsely and cursed a fellow man by the Name. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is liable for two [punishments]. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is only liable for one.

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge between the beater, etc. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of those who vote. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by each other’s testimony?

From where two witnesses? And he is a witness, this makes two. Following Rebbi Ismael, who said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses; unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Two witnesses.” Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that one person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, you could find him liable for an oath of testimony. How could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

HALAKHAH: “An oath about a deposit,” etc. It was stated: Is an oath in his own formulation of an oath of testimony like an imprecation; in his own words is an oath about a deposit like an imprecation? Rebbi Yose said, since it is written “a person, a person”, everything is here and everything is there. Rebbi Mana said, an imprecation made in court is the topic of disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages. He lied to his fellow man, if his confession was eliminated by the oath. It excludes one who lied to one of partners; it excludes one who lied where there are witnesses and a document. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if two people took a loan from one person, even if they did not write “we are responsible and warrantors for one another”, they are responsible and warrantors for one another; but one does not act on this. If two made a joint deposit and one came to retrieve his property, one does not listen to him. Should he not be treated as denying his part and be liable? If one made a deposit with two people. If one denied it, he is liable. If the other denied it, he is liable. If the deposit was worth one peruṭa, does this not result in each of them bringing a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? What here? If one would swear, and swear, and swear, would he not bring a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? There, each oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth. Here no oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth.

HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa) will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa) will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

Samuel said. the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah; the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meïr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed concerning everything; “I am greeting X,” he only signed for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed everything? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated: “Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt,’ he is liable for each single one;” and nobody says “even” unless he agrees to an earlier statement. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, whether he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” or “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement and details. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, if he said, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” it is a general statement and details. If he said “wheat, barley, spelt,” it is a general statement without details.

Does one tell him, be in the clear with Heaven? Let us hear from the following: “It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out a tooth of his slave Tabi. He came to Rebbi Joshua and said to him, I found a reason to manumit my slave Tabi. He told him, you have nothing in your hand; fines only are imposed through witnesses and in court.” This implies that one does not tell him, be in the clear with Heaven. Rebbi Gamliel ben Rebbi Illai asked before Rebbi Mana, does Rabban Gamliel hold with him who says, one is permitted to manumit? He told him, in itself it says that it is forbidden to manumit, for otherwise he should have manumitted him immediately.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A document produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwriting is invalid, for I am saying that he has practiced writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Abinna in the name of Samuel: It is always invalid unless it be in the creditors’s possession but in the debtor’s handwriting. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, explain it according to everybody about a testamentary gift.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a woman should not apply lime because it disfigures her.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden. But the other says, they disagreed about lime which she removes after the holiday. But lime which she removes during the holiday is permitted. We did not know who said what. From what R. Ḥanina, Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jehudah is consistent. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said there, temporary disfiguration is disfiguration, so he says here, temporary pain is pain. This implies that they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden.

Rav said, Adam, the first man, instituted Calendas. When he saw that the night was getting longer, he said, woe to me, maybe this is what is written for, he shall smite your head, you will sneak to his heel, maybe it will come to bite me. I said, but darkness will smite me. When he saw that days were getting longer, he said calendas, καλόνdies. This follows him who said that the world was created in Tishre. But following him who said that the world was created in Nisan, he would have known. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, who thinks that the world was created in Tishre? Rav! As we have stated in the composition for shofar blowing from the House of Rav: “This is the day of the beginning of Your works, a remembrance of the first day.” This implies that the world was created on New Year’s Day.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a male to it, he fertilizes it and it gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male (horse) [damaged one] which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a female to him, she is fertilized by him and gives birth? Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses? He said to them, Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a male to it, he fertilizes it and it gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male (horse) [damaged one] which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a female to him, she is fertilized by him and gives birth? Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses? He said to them, Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses.

HALAKHAH: “Also in a case where they said to lease,” etc. Therefore, at a place where one is used to sell, he may sell even a dwelling and lease a dwelling. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: Even a small room as in the tannery of Sidon. Not only all of it, but even one room. “If there were two, one inside the other, the inner one is liable, the outer one is not liable.” If there was one and it was subdivided into two, two and combined into one? Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that if there was a field adjacent to a road it is forbidden to lease it to Gentiles because it is known by the name of the Jew and they plough there on Sabbaths and holidays.

“But one may put up an animal in a Samaritan hostelry,” etc. This implies that Samaritans are not suspected of forbidden relations. And it was stated thus: “A woman may be alone with two men, even if both are slaves or one a Samaritan and one a slave. But she should not be alone with a Gentile. His mother-in-law, and his wife’s sister, and all other forbidden relations should be alone with him but require the presence of two [others].”

“A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of a Non-Jewish woman” because she gives it life. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one may not teach him a trade. As the following: Two trades, glaziers and carpenters were at (Giro) [Acco]. The glaziers did not teach and continued, the carpenters taught and were pushed out.

Rebbi Huna said, (this means) [a baraita implies] that one does not heal through uncovering nakedness, as it was stated: The Sabbath was permitted in exceptional cases; the betrothed maiden was never permitted in exceptional cases. Was not the Sabbath permitted in exceptional cases for healing? Therefore the betrothed maiden was never permitted, not even for healing. Not only if one said to another, bring me a married woman, but even to hear her voice, as the following: In the days of Rebbi Eleazar a man loved a woman and fell dangerously ill. They came and asked Rebbi Eleazar, should she parade before him that he may live? He said to them, he should die but not this. May he hear her voice and live? He said to them, he should die but not this. How was it? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, one said, she was a married woman, but one said, she was single. One who said that she was a married woman we understand. But the one who said that she was single? Did not Bar Koḥa the carpenter love a woman in the days of Rebbi Eleazar and (became dangerously sick) [and he permitted him]? One case about a married woman and the other about a single one. Even you may say, here and here about a single one, here and here about a married woman. Explain it that he became infatuated with her when she still was married. Some want to say, she was a woman of substance (and did not listen to him) [and did not want to marry.] Everything which he did was forbidden; therefore he did permit nothing to him.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, (this means) [a baraita implies] that one does not heal through spilling blood, as we have stated there: “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him,” we suspect that he will live, “for one does not push aside one life before another life.” Not only if one would say, kill this person, but even if he tell him, injure that person. A Gentile against a Gentile, a Gentile against a Jew, is liable. A Jew against a Gentile is not liable. Rav Ḥisda asked, may one save the life of an adult with the life of a minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state, “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi: There it is different for it is not known who is endangering whom.

HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.“Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. But did not [Rebbi Yose] state: “From a professional it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct but does not commit larceny. He gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct? He deflected him to an other subject and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine? He told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils.

What means “burns it”? He slurps it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in a dirty cup. This implies that one who drinks from a dirty cup neither benefits nor commits larceny.

HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of stones,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: This implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This implies that if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of stones,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: This implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This implies that if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

Why is its shadow forbidden? Because it is an enjoyment. But a grave is forbidden for usufruct and its shadow is permitted! But the Temple Hall is forbidden for usufruct and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai was sitting and teaching in the shadow of the Temple Hall! Therefore the reason cannot be that it is forbidden for usufruct. Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that this impurity of the dead is not logically consistent. For otherwise if a grave were robbing the public and one passed under it one would be pure.

Bar Qappara found a ring with an idol. An Aramean youth was running after him. He was hitting him, cursing him, and told him, spit on it! He did not accept. Urinate on it! He did not accept. This implies that a Non-Jew annuls his own and another person’s idols under duress, on condition that he knows the nature of this idol. An idol which had been worshipped by a Jew can never be annulled. Could it not be like an idol which was abandoned by its worshippers and by that being annulled? Rebbi Ze`ira said, anything which becomes annulled by itself, a Jew can annul. But anything which does not become annulled by itself, a Jew cannot annul.

HALAKHAH: “If an investigative unit came to a village,” etc. In times of a religious persecution all is forbidden; it is impossible that there was not a single Jew who worshipped it under duress. This implies that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew is never invalidated. Rebbi Yose said, you infer from this that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew under duress is never invalidated.

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

And the calf whose neck was broken. There, there. Since there mentioned further describes a prohibition of usufruct, also there said here implies prohibition of usufruct.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

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;] not only the 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.”

“Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement,” etc.] He, not the king. He, not the chieftain. He, to include the priest Anointed for War. A woman in her virginity he shall marry; this excludes an adult whose hymen has atrophied. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon qualify the adult. Rebbi Isaac asked, are these things so in all other things? He takes the fist full and the other burns it; he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a (great) [robbed] purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that he takes the fistful and the other burns it, he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi Isaac asked. If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman having received ḥaliṣah, how do you treat him? [As if] he had died and the homicide might return to his home town or should he be treated as one whose trial had been concluded without a High Priest and he never can leave from there?

HALAKHAH: “Anything which is more frequent than another,” etc. [“If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull”,] for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for. It is preferable that the atoner precede the atoned for, as it is written, he shall atone for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of Israel. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, which one has precedence? Let us hear from the following: A voluntary gift of the Anointed and rams of idolatry were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside. He only said “since their blood enters inside;” this implies that between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. If there were standing the bull of idolatry, the ram which accompanies it, and another purification sacrifice. The bull precedes the ram, the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. How is this done? Rebbi Yose said, since the ram is dependent in time on the bull, it is as if the bull preceded it, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. The bull of idolatry precedes the ram because it precedes in Scripture. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes [in Scripture.] Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective: After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation; it made it lean on the permanent elevation offering. Between the sacrifice of a man and the sacrifice of a woman, the man’s sacrifice has precedence. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A slave brings a bull and his master brings a bull, the slave’s precedes the master’s, as we have stated there: “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies.”

How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months, etc.” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw”, etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete. Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated: “How long can labor be? Rebbi Meïr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor lasts longer than two weeks.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months. Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”

How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months, etc.” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw”, etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete. Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated: “How long can labor be? Rebbi Meïr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor lasts longer than two weeks.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months. Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”

Samuel said, a night and a day form a period, and part of a period is as if it were the entire period. “If she ceased and then bled again, she is impure”. If the look of the blood changed, she is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it did not change because of intercourse. But if it changed because of intercourse, she is pure. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “a virgin whose blood is pure.” That implies, if it changed because of intercourse, she is pure. Since if you said, if it changed because of intercourse she is impure, let her have intercourse with a cloth, maybe it would change because of intercourse and she would be impure!

HALAKHAH: “How is red,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia: Like blood of a wound which was hit a second time. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies this, “red like blood from a wound.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman and Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa were sitting together when a man passed by them. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman. Does he disagree? If he would be hit a second time, it would be like menstrual blood.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the child was dissolved before it came out. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon agrees that he causes his mother the days of birth. Then the house should be impure? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if it came out partially dissolved. Rebbi Simeon said to the Sages: Do you not agree with me that if the basin is carried from the inner to an outer room it is pure? They said to him, because it becomes scrambled. He said to them, this one is already scrambled. What is the rule about vessels which were there at the time of delivery? Let us hear from the following which we stated there: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if a cow brought forth a cake of blood, that should be buried and she is freed from the rule of firstlings.” It was stated on this: It does not bring impurity by being carried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said the same thing. This implies that vessels which were there at the time of delivery are pure.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarries a sexless, or a hermaphrodite,” etc. In all cases in which we have stated “she shall observe for a male and a female,” it means 14 [days] impure and 26 pure; one puts on her the restrictions of both male and female. That means, for her house. But for pure food she observes the rules of a female [birth]. “If it was a sexless and a male, or a hermaphrodite and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female,” one takes into account the possibility of a male. “A sexless and a female, or a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe for a female exclusively,” does one not take into account the possibility of a male? This implies that if she gave birth to a male and a female, or a female and a male, she observes the rules for a female.

Nor may one enter the Temple Mount with his staff"...; nor may he use it as a short cut [koppendaria]. What means koppendaria? Raba said : A short cut, as the word implies. But Rab Hanna b. Adda said in the name of Rab Samma b. R. Mari: It is as people say, "Instead of going round the row of houses, I will go through it" Rab Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If one enters a Synagogue not for the purpose of making it a short cut, he may use it in that manner.

But are not [the laws of] interposition from the Torah, as it is written, "And he shall wash his body in water" (Leviticus 14:9) [which implies] that nothing should interpose between him and the water?

What then is Bet Shammai's reason? -There is another Scriptural verse "You shall make the festival of Sukkoth for seven days" (Deuteronomy 16:13). This implies that we require a sukkah made expressly for the sake of the Festival.

One sukkah above another sukkah… Our Rabbis taught, "You shall dwell in Sukkoth" (Leviticus 23:42), but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! The word "in sukkot" implies two?

This implies [does it not] that the first opinion holds that even if the lower one is not able to bear their weight, it is still invalid?

But surely, it was not taught in this way, for it has been taught: Naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles], and kinofot [means a frame with] four [poles]; If one spread a sheet over the frame of kinofot it is invalid, if over naklitin, it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed. This implies that kinofot [are invalid] even if they are less than ten [handbreadths high]?

R. Yirmiyah said: Let us see: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Why did they say that bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood may not serve as skhakh? Because it may happen that a man returns in the evening from the field with his bundle on his shoulder, and he raises it up and places it on his sukkah to dry it, and then he might decide to leave it there as a skhakh, but the Torah said, "You shall make," [which implies], but not from that which is made. Now since this is a decree lest one use his store-house [as a Sukkah] the other must have been forbidden on the ground of ‘you shall make’ [which implies], but not from that which is made.

R. Yirmiyah said: Let us see: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Why did they say that bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood may not serve as skhakh? Because it may happen that a man returns in the evening from the field with his bundle on his shoulder, and he raises it up and places it on his sukkah to dry it, and then he might decide to leave it there as a skhakh, but the Torah said, "You shall make," [which implies], but not from that which is made. Now since this is a decree lest one use his store-house [as a Sukkah] the other must have been forbidden on the ground of ‘you shall make’ [which implies], but not from that which is made.

R. Ashi said: Are then bundles of straw, bundles of wood and bundles of brushwood forbidden only because of the possible use of a store-house and not because of, "You shall make [which implies], but not from that which is made," and is the hollowing out of a haystack forbidden only because of the "You shall make which implies but not from that which is made," and not because of the possible use of a store-house?

R. Ashi said: Are then bundles of straw, bundles of wood and bundles of brushwood forbidden only because of the possible use of a store-house and not because of, "You shall make [which implies], but not from that which is made," and is the hollowing out of a haystack forbidden only because of the "You shall make which implies but not from that which is made," and not because of the possible use of a store-house?

it is invalid, because of the possible use of a storehouse, but according to Toraitic law it is valid; While in the other case where it is stated "it is not a sukkah," it implies that even when he has made it, it is not a sukkah, even from the Torah.