inena

Rav Jeremiah said, one should start to pray only from a practical rule. Rav Jeremiah said, he who deals with public needs is like him who studies Torah. Rav Ḥuna said: a woman who saw a spot like a mustard seed sits and watches seven days of purification because of it; then he stood up and prayed. Zeïra bar Ḥinena said: He who draws blood from a dedicated animal committed larceny; that is one of the decided practices. Bar Qappara stated: Eleven days between periods is a practice taught to Moses at Sinai. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: One may add produce on the stalk and be tricky in order to free it from tithes. Abdan asked Rebbi: How many levels are there for dedicated things? He answered him: four. And how many levels for Terumah? He answered: three, then he stood up and prayed.

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

How far may he break? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Mana, one says down to the size of an olive, the other says even smaller than the size of an olive. He who says down to the size of an olive, as it is stated “all are crumbled into olive-size pieces.” He who says, smaller than the size of an olive: “Rebbi Ismael stated, even if he reduced it to its original form of fine flour.” It has been stated: “On everything that needs three benedictions at the end one says ‘He Who produces bread from the earth’ at the start, but on everything that does not need three benedictions at the end one does not say ‘He Who produces bread from the earth’ at the start.” They objected: But if it is less than the size of an olive, one does not say three benedictions at the end. Does this mean that one should not say “He Who produces bread from the earth” at the start? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is needed for other kinds.

There (Mishnah Sukkah 4:5) we have stated: “Sukkah seven days, how is this? If he finished to eat he should not take down his sukkah, but he takes out the vessels starting from the time of afternoon prayers because of the honor due to the last holiday.” 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 Rebbi Hoshaiah: He who loves his sukkah makes Qiddush of the last holiday in his house and goes to eat 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.

“One does not recite the benediction over a lamp unless he has profited from its light.” Rav Yehudah in the name of Samuel: So that women would be able to spin by its light. Rebbi Yoḥanan said: So that his eye should see what is in the cup or in the bowl. Rav Ḥinena said, so that he should be able to distinguish between two coins.

He who sees the moon in its renewal says: Praise to Him Who renews months. Until when? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose: Until it is seen like half a stick. Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Yose: Until its missing part is filled. The rabbis of Caesarea say, until the fourteenth day. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, that is correct; the missing part is never filled before the fourteenth day. Hence, all fourteen days one needs to recite the benediction.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Only if they all touch the palm of his hand. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say, it happened that they weighed a gleaning in Sepphoris and it was seven pounds? Rebbi Ḥinena said, if they put it on a board, every grape must touch the board.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the same is valid for an eruv. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this is for wine, but oil for an eruv must be enough for two meals. It was stated: One may use for eruv vinegar enough for two meals. It was stated: One may use for eruv oil enough for two meals. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For dipping in it bundled vegetables for two meals. Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshaya said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai: One may use for eruv raw peas enough for two meals. For whom is this statement necessary? For Rebbi Meïr, that one should not say because they produce bad mouth odor one may not use them for eruv. One may use salted fish for eruv. One may use salted meat for eruv. Fresh meat, as we have stated: The Babylonians eat it raw because their taste is strange. Rebbi Judan asked: May one use χαλκίς for eruv since the Samaritans eat it raw? Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: One may use for eruv pa‘apu‘in,gudganiot, and ḥaluglugot. They asked him: what are these? He said to them, καυκαλίς, melilot, and purslain.

Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappai used to distribute his charity in the night. Once the prince of spirits encountered him. He said to him, did not our teacher teach us (Deut 19:14): “Do not displace your neighbor’s boundaries.” He said to him, but is it not written (Prov. 21:14): “A gift in secret appeases anger.” He was afraid of him and fled from him.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, so is the Mishnah: Everybody who needs to take and does not take commits suicide and one may not have mercy on him. If he does not care for himself, would he care for others? Everybody who has no need to take but takes will not die of old age until he needs the creatures. Everybody who needs to take but does not take will not die of old age until he can provide for others from what is his; on him is was said (Jer. 17:7): “Blessed be the man who will be confident in the Eternal; the Eternal will be his trust.”

But does it not turn out that he creates an obstacle for those who come after him? Let him make a separate heap. But why can he not fix them in his own produce? Did we not state: “A person may fix his tithes for someone else, even if he creates an obstacle for those who come after him.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, they made that ordinance for the buyer but not for him who returns [produce].

“If he received a field to harvest for wheat, grapes to harvest for wine, olives to harvest for oil, he tithes before he delivers.” Come and see: Before he sows, he separates heave; after it was sown, he tithes? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they made a special decree for the sharecropper, so that the Land of Israel should not lie fallow. But here it is already sown.

If one sold wheat as [standard] good quality and it turned out to be sifted, may he take out the value of that quarter? The words of the rabbis say that he cannot take out the value of that quarter, for Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s grain has to give him good grain in their stead. If he removed one and one half quarters, may he take out the value of that quarter? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Ḥinena said, he takes it out. Rebbi Mana said, he does not take it out, because he can say to him, if you had returned it to me, I would have bundled it for the Saracens who would have bought it; what that buyer sees is what he buys.

If one sold wheat as [standard] good quality and it turned out to be sifted, may he take out the value of that quarter? The words of the rabbis say that he cannot take out the value of that quarter, for Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rav: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s grain has to give him good grain in their stead. If he removed one and one half quarters, may he take out the value of that quarter? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Ḥinena said, he takes it out. Rebbi Mana said, he does not take it out, because he can say to him, if you had returned it to me, I would have bundled it for the Saracens who would have bought it; what that buyer sees is what he buys.

What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” Rebbi Ḥinena said, if Egyptian pumpkin whose leaves form roofs is permitted, green melon and Egyptian beans so much more. Rebbi Abba Mari said, Rebbi Mana did not say so. Rebbi said, all those about which we did state “green melon and Egyptian beans,” also include Egyptian pumpkin. What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” That none of these form roofs like Greek gourd.

The caper bush. The House of Shammai say, it is kilaim in a vineyard but not with grains. The House of Hillel say, it is never kilaim, neither in a vineyard nor with grains. Both agree that it is subject to orlah. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Papa stated: Any plant that branches out from its stem is a tree; from its roots it is a vegetable. They objected: But cabbage forms its leaves from its stem! Here when it is sure, there when it is doubtful.

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks about distances from three to four hand-breadths. Less than three is close up, up to four one has to complete, four is easy for it. How far? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to four cubits. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to six cubits. Rebbi Mana said: I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Hoshiah bar Shammai in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: If there were two papyri, it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, a statement disagrees: If he usually oversteps, it is forbidden. It was stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he usually oversteps between lattices, it is treated as a single lattice.

HALAKHAH: Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks about distances from three to four hand-breadths. Less than three is close up, up to four one has to complete, four is easy for it. How far? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to four cubits. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, up to six cubits. Rebbi Mana said: I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Hoshiah bar Shammai in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar: If there were two papyri, it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, a statement disagrees: If he usually oversteps, it is forbidden. It was stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he usually oversteps between lattices, it is treated as a single lattice.

“If one tree yields, etc.” Rebbi Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Only he should not diminish from the computation of triads. Zeïra bar Ḥinena said, only he should not diminish from the computation of nonads.

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

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

HALAKHAH: “When may one not cut down”, etc. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa stated, for carob trees their forming clusters means their sprouting. “Vines when they produce fluid,” Rebbi Jonah said when they flow with water, as you say (Job 36:27): “He draws the waterdrops that distill rain from their mist.” “Olive trees when they have flower buds”, Rebbi Jonah said, when they bring a quarter [qab]. A quarter [qab] of flower buds or a quarter [qab] of olives? Rebbi Jonah said, that means, flower buds which will yield a quarter [qab] of olives.

There, they say: A tree which buds before the New Year’s Day of the World is tithed for the past; after the New Year’s Day of the World it is tithed for the future. Rebbi Yudan bar Pedaiah objected before Rebbi Jonah: But carob trees form buds before New Year’s Day and are tithed for the future! He had not heard what Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos said, for carob trees the forming of clusters is [counted as] their forming buds.

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

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

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

HALAKHAH: He is praiseworthy relative to whom? Rebbi Huna said, praiseworthy relative to one who estimates heave. Rebbi Ḥinena the son of Rebbi Hillel said, does the Mishnah say so? “He who weighs is the most praiseworthy of the three.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, explain it “among the three” and it does not imply anything.

HALAKHAH: He is praiseworthy relative to whom? Rebbi Huna said, praiseworthy relative to one who estimates heave. Rebbi Ḥinena the son of Rebbi Hillel said, does the Mishnah say so? “He who weighs is the most praiseworthy of the three.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, explain it “among the three” and it does not imply anything.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son.

“Five fluids are not endangered by being uncovered: Fish oil, muries, vinegar, olive oil, and honey. Rebbi Simeon forbids honey. The Sages agree with Rebbi Simeon if it was seen pecking.” Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos had an uncovered flask of honey in his hand. Before he could ask, it broke apart.

Zeir bar Ḥinena was captured at Safsufa. Rebbi Ammi and Rebbi Samuel went to negotiate for him. Queen Zenobia said to them, your Creator usually does wonders for you; put Him under pressure! There came a Saracen carrying a sabre. He said to them, with this sabre did Odenathus kill his brother. Zeїr bar Ḥinena was saved.

Zeir bar Ḥinena was captured at Safsufa. Rebbi Ammi and Rebbi Samuel went to negotiate for him. Queen Zenobia said to them, your Creator usually does wonders for you; put Him under pressure! There came a Saracen carrying a sabre. He said to them, with this sabre did Odenathus kill his brother. Zeїr bar Ḥinena was saved.

Rebbi Ḥanina Tortayya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Bulb vegetables with bulb vegetables, a kind with itself, Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is permitted. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Assi: If that had not been said, we would not know that it is so, but maybe it was said as follows: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the next Mishnah: “Rebbi Aqiba says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat.” Therefore, “meat with meat is forbidden.” Maybe it was formulated as: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden.

Rebbi Ḥanina Tortayya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Bulb vegetables with bulb vegetables, a kind with itself, Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is permitted. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Assi: If that had not been said, we would not know that it is so, but maybe it was said as follows: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the next Mishnah: “Rebbi Aqiba says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat.” Therefore, “meat with meat is forbidden.” Maybe it was formulated as: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden.

Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: That log of oil of the leper, must he give it back or not? If you say he must give it back, and he did not, he transgresses by default. If you say he need not give it back, and he did, he transgresses by excess Rebbi Ḥinena did not say so, but Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. That log of oil of the leper belongs to those [consecrated foods] which can be permitted and you say he must give it back? That means, he must give back and if he did not, he transgresses by default.

“ If cattle of a Cohen was fed at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after [the Cohen] left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this happened to me; by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

Rav Ḥisda said, if somebody declared his standing grain ownerless, came back and retook possession, and illegally gave heave, that is heave. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first.

Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa stated, for carob trees their forming clusters means their sprouting. “All black ones”, e. g., bunches of the myrtle and bunches of senna [berries]. Quince, quince. Why are they called “prepared”, because there is no tree only producing for the pot except that kind.

New section 1. “All white ones,” e. g. מרפייתא. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, when they get white bald spots. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, when water starts to flow in them. There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina and he wanted to act following Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa. He had second thoughts and said, do they get bald because of the edible part? Rather it is because a worm is in them!

New section 1. “All white ones,” e. g. מרפייתא. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, when they get white bald spots. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, when water starts to flow in them. There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina and he wanted to act following Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa. He had second thoughts and said, do they get bald because of the edible part? Rather it is because a worm is in them!

Rebbi Zeïra said: It is written (Deut 14:22): “You shall certainly tithe all your seed-yield.” Anything which will grow when sown; this excludes seeds less than one-third ripe which will not grow when sown. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi: The fluids from grapes or olives which are not one-third ripe will not prepare [for impurity].

It was stated: When he makes a pile on his roof top. Rebbi Jonah asked: Therefore, not on his field? Rebbi Ḥinena said, it tells you something additional: even if he makes a pile on his roof top.

“Grain when it is in smooth piles.” Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he straightens his heap. But did not Rebbi Jacob ben Sisin state: “When does he start to give heave from his threshing floor? When he removes the pitchfork.” Here, when he intends to smoothe, there if he did not intend to smoothe. It was stated: “He sifts part and gives heave from the sifted part for what is not sifted.” Rebbi Ila said, for this is the way of householders to bring it into their houses. What is the reason? (Is. 30:24) “The bulls and young donkeys which work the soil will eat sour mix.” If he sifted [grain] dedicated to the Temple and then redeemed it; since he was able to eat from it as a snack and now he cannot eat, it is as if he did it with the permission of the Temple and he is obligated. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Did we not state, “if he took out and cleaned what was dedicated to the Temple, he is free?” Rebbi Yudan said, there it is not impossible for him not to preserve or not to cook a long time. But here it is impossible for him not to smooth it, as Rebbi Ila said, the bulls and young donkeys, etc.

Rebbi Ḥinena said, this is only if he arrived by the crown. But if he arrived by the stem, the stem already received him.

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

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is crocus permitted as aftergrowth? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah asked, did we not state: “One does not buy flax from anybody suspect in matters of the Sabbatical, not even combed?” Is flax not like wood chips? Rebbi Ḥinena said, because of its seed. Rebbi Mana said, if it were because of its seed, did we not state: “ One does not buy water or salt from anybody suspect of selling heave as profane?” Can you say, water or salt because of their seeds? No, as a fine. Here also as a fine.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If someone steals someone else’s animal tithe, if it still exists he returns it as is, if he ate it, he ate what he ate. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Mana: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a peruṭah one cannot say that he should give. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a peruṭah from the start. But if it was worth a peruṭah from the start, one tells him to pay.

Rebbi Yose said, we teach all these words but a Mishnah supports Rebbi Zeïra: “He should not bring from wheat of Second Tithe but from money of Second Tithe.” What is the difference between wheat and money? It must be that when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Ḥinena asked before Rebbi Mana: Why should he not bring wheat, the heave to the Cohen and the rest for the owners, why does he not bring? He said to him, think of it, if the blood is spilled does the bread not become unusable?

Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the following: “If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is guilty only once.” Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from here (Deut. 26:14): “I did not eat from it in my mourning”, but I drank?

It was stated: “A piece of the showbread which was mixed with a hundred pieces of profane [bread], or a piece of purification sacrifice mixed with a hundred profane pieces [of meat], should not be lifted. Rebbi Jehudah says they should be lifted.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? (Ez. 45:15) “One sheep from 200 from the drink of Israel,” from what is permitted to Israel. It is difficult! It is written 200 and Rebbi Jehudah says 100. It is written alive and Rebbi Jehudah says slaughtered. What is the difference between alive and slaughtered? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they considered live ones under the category of what usually is counted.

So far following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an argument a minore ad majus. If heave which is forbidden to outsiders can be lifted, ‘orlah which is permitted to outsiders, not so much more? No, if you said that about heave whose use is permitted, what can you say about ‘orlah whose use is prohibited! Rebbi Ḥinena: “Fruit, fruit” as equal decision.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If he dedicated them before Tabernacles and Tabernacles passed, he brings and does not make the declaration. If he dedicated them before Ḥanukkah and Ḥanukkah passed, they will rot. After Ḥanukkah they do not become holy. Rebbi Zeïra will not accept this of the colleagues; Rebbi Zeïra is of the opinion that all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Do the colleagues not accept this? They accept it; if he dedicated before Tabernacles intending to bring them after Tabernacles. Did we not state: One may not bring First Fruits from the new crop for the old, nor from the old for the new. Where do we hold? If about produce which was one third ripe before New Year’s Day for produce which was not one third ripe before New Year’s Day, since it was not one third ripe before New Year’s Day it is obvious that it did not form roots before the ‘omer and will be forbidden until the coming ‘omer permits it. But we must deal with fruits [from trees] which budded before the fifteenth of Šebaṭ for fruits which budded after the fifteenth of Šebaṭ; because that would be from new for old. Therefore, from new for new one may bring. We thought to say that one speaks of the time after Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in its time.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

Rebbi Zeˋirah in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: landings between pillars are judged as karmelit. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The flowers of the pillars are considered karmelit. There it is necessary that they be higher than three [hand-breadths]; Ḥiyya the son of Rav: Anything which hinders access in the public domain is considered karmelit. The rabbis of Caesarea say, even thistles, even glass. This is necessary if they are not three [hand-breadths] high.

Their semen. But did not Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, a Gentile’s semen is pure for semen cannot be discharged without urine.

“Nor with raw flax,” Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas, flax which was not cleansed, as you say, the uncleaned flax will be tinder.

“If cattle of a Cohen was passing at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not the Israel’s. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the Cohen left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put a vessel under the light to catch the oil but when he put it there when it still was daylight it is permitted. One may not use it because it is not prepared,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it burned out when it still was day but he realized it only after it was dark? The colleagues asked: If it burned out on this Sabbath but he realized it only afterwards on the Sabbath? Rebbi Joḥanan said, nothing in its natural form is not prepared except one item. Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is not oil in the lamp in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the lamp. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected: Is not seed grain in its natural form, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the ground. They objected: Are there not eggs used for chicks which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! They were put there from the start to become chicks. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: Are there not Sukkah decorations which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! There is a difference, as Rebbi Abba Mari, Rebbi Yose’s brother, said: For the seven days they become insignificant in the Sukkah. Afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Is not lint which was scattered in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food. Rebbi Nasa objected, are there not figs put out to ferment, which dried but he did not touch, in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food.

If it was uncovered when it still was daylight he may cover it when it still is daylight. If it was uncovered after dark he may cover if after dark. If it was uncovered when it still was daylight and the day became holy for him? It was stated: One does not store hot water away after dark but one may add over it garments and vessels. How much must be on them that it be permitted to cover them? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Even a handkerchief. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only something of use. Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything is useful. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. If somebody would take a rag and put it on his head in the cold, would this not conquer the cold?

“And the horse with a chain.” But did we not state, all human decorations are impure but decorations of animals are pure? Explain it if they are made to lead them. But then does it not make a groove? But following Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, like the following as it was stated: “a hinged door, a hinged mat, hinged lattice gates, one may open and lock on the Sabbath, and it is not necessary to say on a holiday.” It also was stated: “If a mat was tied to and hanging from a pillar, one may open and lock on the Sabbath, and it is not necessary to say on a holiday.”

“Who rubs it clean.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old, it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles, who makes cheese, who makes butter, who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who sweeps, who sprinkles, is liable because of threshing. He who makes cheese, who makes butter, is liable because of kneading. He who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable because of harvesting. He who squeezes budding olives is liable because of harvesting. Who needs this? Rebbi Eliezer.

Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: This is what you are saying for red ones. But black ones are separated.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One who threw four cubits in the public domain is liable. Rebbi Jehudah considers four cubits in the public domain a separate category of work. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion there are 40 categories of work: should we not state this? We come to state only things about which everybody agrees. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah learned this from those who were sewing the gobelins, for those sewing the gobelins were throwing the needles one to another. Is that not karmelit? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they were throwing sideways.

Samuel said, anybody who tightly closes the shutters is liable because of building. This is difficult. Something which if it was done on the Sabbath makes him liable for a purification sacrifice the House of Hillel permit to restore? Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the start. For if you say that he cannot put them back he will not open. Don’t let him open! Then he detracts from the enjoyment of the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa said, he may put them back on condition that he not restore completely. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if there is no door there. But if there is a door he uses the door.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

“Even if there are coins inside.” This parallels what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥinena from Cartagena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: On a saddle bag full of coins one puts a loaf and may move it.

Rebbi Abba (Rebbi Judah, Rebbi) Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Neḥemiah about the press, the plank, and the mace; the press with which he presses, the plank on which one beats them, the mace with which he smashes them. An implement dedicated to a forbidden use may be moved only for a need; one for permitted use both with and without a need.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi instructed to bring it in shoes. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos instructed to make a wall of people and to bring it in shoes. Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon had a case to circumcise his son, Rav Shishaa. They forgot to bring the knife. He asked Rebbi Mana who said, it should be deferred until tomorrow. He asked Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar who told them, you did not forget to mix spiced wine, but to bring a knife you forgot; it should be deferred until tomorrow.

The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. Since there, where he qualifies it as an implement, you say that it is permitted, here, where he does not qualify it as an implement, not so much more? Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Also they permitted preparations for making food. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: Following him who permits, only from above. As the following: In the days of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi there was a festive meal in the House of Study. They spread a canopy the day before over four cubits; the next day they were extending it over everything. They were of the opinion that this followed the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi. They investigated and found that it was not according to Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s opinion unless it was spread over most of it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who sets up tents on the Sabbath is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he only is spreading and folding it on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the rule for a spread over a chest? He told him, since it was spread the day before he is like one who unlocks and locks on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does [not] follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. (We asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.) We asked about it, we would think this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him? Samuel said, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, for example what we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”? He told him, did I not say Eruvin but partitions? Cahana shares Samuel’s opinion. Therefore it was necessary to say that practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah.

If a porch was totally open to the public domain, Rebbi La: [Rav] and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, one may carry in its entirety; Samuel said, one may carry in it only four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, does not Samuel agree that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified? But Samuel must hold, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. There came Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. Rebbi Yose said, even if Samuel would think that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified, an alley is not comparable to a porch. An alley is made for the use of the adjacent houses, a porch is made for the use (of a thing). If an alley is not roofed but there is a beam within twenty cubits, would it not be qualified? But if a porch is not roofed although there is a beam within twenty cubits, would that mean anything?

There we have stated: “Because the relation of the alley to courtyards is like that of a courtyard to houses.” How many courtyards must there be for an alley? Rav and Samuel both are saying, there cannot be less than two. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one courtyard on each side. Rebbi Aha, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, even a courtyard on one side and a house on the other side, a house on one side and a store on the other side. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob (asked) [in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan]: An alley cannot have less than two courtyards, a courtyard cannot have less than two houses. An alley whose length and width are equal is not permitted by lath or beam but by planks like a courtyard. Samuel asked Rav, by how much must its length exceed its width? He told him, anything. The dwellers of the Land of Israel make theirs square. If five alleys open into one alley. Whether what is standing is more than what is breached or what is breached is more than what is standing, it does not need a beam, if they are distant four cubits.

If two beams are one on top of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. It was found stated that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s argument and disagrees with him. He follows his fathers argument since he says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower. He disagrees with him since he says, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. If you would say that he follows his father’s opinion it could be arbitrarily high. Rebbi Yose, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rebbi Yudan; Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: Only if the upper one be within three hand-breadths of the lower one.

If two beams are one on top of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. It was found stated that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s argument and disagrees with him. He follows his fathers argument since he says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower. He disagrees with him since he says, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. If you would say that he follows his father’s opinion it could be arbitrarily high. Rebbi Yose, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rebbi Yudan; Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: Only if the upper one be within three hand-breadths of the lower one.

Rebbi Ḥinena did not say so but: Rav went to a certain place; he saw a certain alley whose beam had been removed, and forbade it. Rav Ḥuna said to him, the date palm stands. Rav told him, the eyes of Rav Ḥuna are high, the eyes of Rav are not high; but I am forbidding it for them because of a beam, and the next Sabbath I am permitting it to them because of a lath, that they should know that if the palm tree were removed they would be forbidden to carry. Some want to say, that they should not think following Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.” And here he says so? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Jehudah treated it as a house.

HALAKHAH: “One surrounds with sticks, on condition,” etc. One surrounds with sticks for a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. This implies that an individual needs woof and warp. So Rebbi Jehudah differentiates between an individual and a caravan; do the rabbis not differentiate between an individual and a caravan? Let us hear from the following: “If a caravan rested on a hill ten [hand-breadths] high, or in a depression ten [hand-breadths] deep, or in a garden fenced in by a stone wall, one carries in it even if it is a kor or two kor, (one carries in it up to two bet se’ah), on condition that they do not leave an area of two bet se’ah unoccupied.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: even with camel saddles, even with tubs. The word of Rav Huna implies, only by humans. For Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥuna, to one or two one gives two bet se’ah, to three one gives six bet se’ah, from there on by proportion.

They wanted to say that Rebbi Meïr would admit to Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Jehudah will not admit to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Meïr will admit to Rebbi Jehudah? Does not Rebbi Meïr have simple poles, and you are saying so? If you are making double columns but no straight poles, he would think, perhaps a partition for the Sabbath is made in this way; he would make it in other places and become liable. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Neither of them yields to the other. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose (about) did not say this, he said something similar. Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Bun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: How far away does a double column have to be so it would not need a straight [plank]? He told him, less than three [hand-breadths] is considered closed, more than six is far away. Therefore we have to consider from three to four. If you would say that Rebbi Meïr yields to Rebbi Jehudah, should he not make a double column far away and not need a simple [plank]? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rebbi Meïr requires simple [planks] only according to Rebbi Jehudah’s method. Rebbi Yose said, even according to his own method, since in any case what is standing is not more than what is breached. Since what is standing should be more than what is breached it needs a simple [plank].

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If he deposited it in a tree more than ten hand-breadths high,” etc. 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-breadth 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 private domain created by it, it implies that his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left the Sabbath domain,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena and Rav Ḥasdai both are saying, he said only “two”. Therefore could he enter with two and a little bit? Since this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, as Rebbi Eleazar said, “for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter.” Rebbi Yose told him, one says at the end, “three he may not re-enter,” therefore three minus a little bit he may re-enter. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Eleazar said is about one who left, therefore not about one who stayed overnight. It was found stated, one is like the other. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Simeon said is about one who stayed overnight, therefore not about one who left. It was found stated, one is like the other.

If from him to a river were 75 cubits. Two Amoraim, one said, he measures with a rope of 50 cubits and returns 25 cubits; but the other one said, he measures with a rope of 50 cubits and the remainder he measures with a rope of four cubits. If the river was narrow on top and wide below, up to 50 cubits one considers it as if full of dust and pebbles; otherwise one sees it inclining upwards and inclining downwards. If the river was bent, Rebbi Ḥasdai says, with telescopes he estimates in the plain and does the same with a mountain. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: only if the measure results in the mountain four hand-breadths as a place. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abuna in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Yudan has it in the name of Rav: If one holds it high above his head and the other by his feet, everybody agrees that one strip-measures. The high one over his head and the low one on his hips, everybody agrees that one strip-measures. Where do they disagree? On his heart; Rebbi Meïr says one strip-measures but the Sages say one does not strip-measure.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥinena: If the roof of the cave was 4’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits, on top of a wall it is unlimited. If the roof of the cave was 6’000 cubits he walks in its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits by the help of nibariot. What about tops of roofs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Aeneas bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Aḥa brings it in the name of Samuel. On top of the roofs one carries even a kor, even two kor. Rebbi Meïr said, one carries up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the word of Rav disagrees with him, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city form a single domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. It is the same for tops of roofs and tops of ships.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and following Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, and we asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? We asked about it, we would think to say that this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they disagree about ceding rights. Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, but the rabbis are saying, he may not cede rights. Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, and you are saying, “be quick”? Even though Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand. It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rebbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita: he does not forbid. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Everybody agrees that he may cede rights. Where do they disagree? To change his mind. Rebbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, but the rabbis say, he may cede his rights and cannot retract it. Rebbi Meïr says he may cede his rights and retract it, and you are saying, “be quick”? Even though Rebbi Meïr says, he may cede rights, he agrees that they may lay claim to the alley beforehand. It was stated thus: Because he may cede rights like a Jew, the words of Rebbi Meïr. “Whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the baraita: he does not forbid.

It was stated: “If two people were partners in a courtyard and one of them died, and the house fell as inheritance to an outside person. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: This is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since he dies there is no greater cession of rights than this. “If an outside person owned a house in the courtyard with them when he died and the house fell as inheritance to a dweller in the courtyard. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Still this is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. May one cede rights after dark? Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi went up to Ḥammat Gader. They asked Rebbi Ḥama bar Joseph and he permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan heard them and said, you did the correct thing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, you acted incorrectly. Do they disagree? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you moved. Rebbi Abba said, they disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased and moved. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you leased and that you moved.

Rebbi Abba asked, is it the same in the matter of partitions? How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath already had started in prohibition. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath already had started in permission. The strength of Rebbi Abba is from the following: Any Sabbath which started in permission is permitted, in prohibition is prohibited, except one who cedes rights; and he would say, except one who cedes or leases. May one lease rights from the owner of a hostelry? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Jonathan went to Ḥammat Gader. They said, we shall wait until the Elders of the South arrive here. There came Rebbi (Peres) {Nathan] the Southerner; they asked him and he permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, since the Gentile may remove us, we did not do anything. Simeon bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked, then our houses are not ours? Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Boethos: Our houses are not ours, to dwell with us; but they cannot force us to leave; but in a hostelry they remove us.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange. Rebbi Joḥanan asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that money does not transfer title as word of the Torah. Then even if he comes to the grocer? There is a difference, maybe he would forget and sell it. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: My father did not say so but: “But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him.” This implies that money does transfer title as word from the Torah. “They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him,” because the grocer will transfer title through a third person. “Because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement;” the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

The House of Rebbi Yannai are saying, even a peg to hang his shoes on. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, even a metal plate, even a table. Rav said, but only what may be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba said, it happened that a person had a chicken coop inside another person’s house, where he could enter without asking for permission. The case came before Rav who said, since he is obligated to give them water it is as if it could be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Samuel: The students of Rebbi Joḥanan ascended to Akhbara and relied on the statement of Rebbi Yannai. Ḥizqiah does not say so but: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi ascended to Akhbara and heard from the House of Rebbi Yannai that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

The following is obvious: If it is ten deep but not four wide one may move and fill. If it was four wide but not ten deep it is obvious that one may move. May one fill? Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, it is forbidden. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Mana: “They told him, because it did not have the measure.” It was neither ten deep nor four wide. But if it had been ten deep but not four wide it would have been forbidden. Even if it is four wide but not ten deep it is permitted. The case happened as it happened.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words.” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I said, it is correct. There (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux].”

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes. If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden, but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it.

From where that the song is called atonement? Ḥinena the father of (Rav Yanta) [Bar Nata] in the name of Rebbi Banaia: and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song. From where that the song invalidates? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon βουλευτής, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song.

Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything they made dependent on usage. There were acacia trees in Migdal Sevaya. They came and asked Rebbi Ḥanania, the colleague of the rabbis, may one use them for work? He told them, since your ancestors used to treat them as forbidden, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abbin. In any case which is permitted but in error he treats it as forbidden, if he asks they will permit him. But in any case where he knows that it is permitted but he has the usage to treat it as forbidden, if he asks they will not permit him.

“And the burning of its fat.” The fat of my holiday offering shall not stay until the morning. But could parts from weekday be brought on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath. Rebbi Jonah asked, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath, no holiday offering comes with it, that the Torah has to say, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not stay”? (And here, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not tarry”.) Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he transgressed and brought, is it not qualified? Since it is qualified if he transgressed and brought, he would transgress.

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.