inena

Here, you are saying, he cleans and then he burns the incense; but there, you are saying, he burns the incense and then he cleans. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Tamid of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, but not all of it; there are sayings questioned by the rabbis. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is Middot of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, but not all of it; there are sayings questioned by the rabbis. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh? In the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lights he shall burn the incense on it. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: The reason of the rabbis, outside the curtain of the testimonial in the Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening to morning; that there shall be only the cleaning of the lights.

Parwayim gold. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, red, it is like ox blood, but some are saying, gold which produces fruits. As we have stated there, “a golden vine was standing at the door of the inner hall.” Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac said, at the time when Solomon built the Temple, he formed all kinds of trees in it and at the time when those outside where bearing fruit, those inside where bearing fruit. That is what is written, blooming the blossom and jubilate, also enjoying and singing, etc. When did they dry up? Rebbi Isaac Ḥinena bar Isaac said, when Manasse put up at statue in the Temple they dried up, as it is written, and the flower of the Lebanon is wilted.

Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the following: [“If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is liable only once.”

“One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement.” Rav Ḥuna explained the Mishnah: One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement, and does not train them, but one or two years before one trains them. Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah: One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement, but one does train them, and one or two years before they complete the fast. Until when? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: At age nine or age ten.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The scholars who teach the priests the rules of slaughter, rules of receiving, rules of sprinkling, take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Isaac bar Redifa in the name of Immi: The inspectors of defects of sancta take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simlai: Those who correct the scroll of the Temple courtyard take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Assi: The two judges of robberies take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Samuel said, women who are weaving the gobelins take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge; Rav Ḥuna said, from disbursements for repair of the House. How do they disagree? Samuel makes it a sacrifice, Rav Huna makes it part of the building. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs stated: The incense and all public sacrifices come from the disbursement from the lodge. The golden altar and vessels for the Service come from the excess of libations. The altar for elevation sacrifices, the building, and the courtyards come from the leftover in the lodge. The outside of the courtyards come from the lodge for maintenance of the House. But was it not stated: One commits me`ilah with stones of the Temple or the courtyards. How can one commit me`ilah with leftovers? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, one commits me`ilah with leftovers. Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Meïr said this only during its year. But here we are after its year.

Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos 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: Do not displace your neighbour’s boundaries? He said to him, but is it not written, a gift in secret appeases anger? He was afraid of him and fled from him.

And it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. Rav Hoshaia asked, what if the one hand-breadth one is put in the middle? He came back and asked, if one of the four hand-breadths ones was put in the middle, how is it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Such a case came before Rebbi Yasa and he qualified it. And it was stated thus: “If a courtyard is enclosed by pillars, the pillars are like walls.” Does not a baraita disagree? If they are made according to the rules they are qualified, not according to the rules disqualified. They wanted to say, in the middle. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if these are not opposite those. Rav said, that one of one hand-breadth must be removed from the wall by one hand-breadth. Samuel said, even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one follows this one, the other one the other. Cahana and Assi came and asked before Rav following that of Samuel. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if it is within three hand-breadths like a lathe.

Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemia, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he used steps of ladders for roofing it is (qualified) [disqualified]. Male parts, it is qualified. Female parts, it is disqualified. If he roofed with bundles of flax, it is disqualified, with raw flax it is qualified. If he roofed it with ropes, there are Tannaim who state, qualified, and there are Tannaim who state, disqualified. He who said qualified, with bast ropes; but he who said disqualified, with linen ropes.

Rebbi Jacob bar Abbaya, Rav Sheshet in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: There is no bundle with less than twenty-five. Ḥinena bar Shelemia in the name of Rav: If he cut for roofing it has no handles. If he cut as roofing and then intended it as food it follows his thought. If he cut for food and then intended it as roofing? Others say, only if the straw is more than the food and the handles. Rav follows the others. Where do we hold? If he cut for roofing but it became prepared and he said, after they will have fulfilled the commandment I shall bring them back to the threshing floor, do they need preparation a second time or are they already prepared?

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

It was stated in Rebbi Eliezer’s name: He who did not make his sukkah before the holiday may not make it on the holiday. But did not Bar Qappara state, if his sukkah collapsed on the holiday, he shall rebuild it on the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Eliezer punished him because he did not make his sukkah before the holiday. Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion seems inverted. There, he says, a person is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, and here he says so? Rebbi Aḥa said, they were compared as commandments.

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 ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “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 Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this 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 that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun 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 Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. So is the Mishnah: If one can shake it, it is qualified. It was stated: Myrtle and willow twig three, and lulav four. It was stated, by the cubit of five {hand-breadths}, the words of Rebbi Tarphon, but the Sages are saying, by the cubit of six. For Rebbi Tarphon, large hand-breadths; in the opinion of the Sages, thin hand-breadths. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Patriarch: The lulav a hand-breadth. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the hyssop a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon confirmed it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth, the ram’s horn a hand-breadth, the placenta a hand-breadth, and some are saying, also the third wall a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth except the spine? The hyssop a hand-breadth except for the stalk? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav; Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Parnakh, Rav Mattanah, Yose bar Manisha in the name of Rav: The lulav a hand-breadth except for the spine; the hyssop a hand-breadth except for its stalks.

Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. So is the Mishnah: If one can shake it, it is qualified. It was stated: Myrtle and willow twig three, and lulav four. It was stated, by the cubit of five {hand-breadths}, the words of Rebbi Tarphon, but the Sages are saying, by the cubit of six. For Rebbi Tarphon, large hand-breadths; in the opinion of the Sages, thin hand-breadths. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Patriarch: The lulav a hand-breadth. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the hyssop a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon confirmed it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth, the ram’s horn a hand-breadth, the placenta a hand-breadth, and some are saying, also the third wall a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth except the spine? The hyssop a hand-breadth except for the stalk? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav; Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Parnakh, Rav Mattanah, Yose bar Manisha in the name of Rav: The lulav a hand-breadth except for the spine; the hyssop a hand-breadth except for its stalks.

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

HALAKHAH: Why non-sanctified? Even if it is sanctified! Did not Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena say in the name of Rebbi Yasa, you shall sanctify the altar; then the altar will be most holy. Since the altar only sanctifies with intention, so vessels should only sanctify with intention. Ḥizqiah said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for the sanctification of hands and feet become disqualified by staying overnight. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, that they should not say, we saw that water filled for Tabernacles become disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of the evil impression; but we do not know whether following Ḥizqiah or according to everybody’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The water for a deviant wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight. Rebbi Abuna: anything of whose kind nothing possibly is for the altar cannot become disqualified by staying overnight.

As this: 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 Sabbath. <rebbi yose asked, if the fourteenth fell on a sabbath,> 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.

“For demanding will demand, these are purification and reparation offerings. The Eternal, your God, this is dedication for the upkeep of the Temple. From with you, this is collecting single stalks, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Or there would be sin in you, but no sin in your sacrifice.” For otherwise what would we say? Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that you should not say, maybe the sacrifice will be found disqualified; therefore it was necessary to say, (do not tarry to fulfill it, and not its substitute) [there would be sin in you, but no sin in your sacrifice.] The pronouncement of your lips you shall guard and execute. “You shall guard and execute, to alert the court that they should force you.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Avuna: From here the pledge. As you vowed to the Eternal, your God, a voluntary gift. Is there a vow which is called voluntary gift? But to make him liable for each single vow and every single voluntary gift. “What is the vow about which they spoke? He who says, on me is the obligation for an elevation offering. What is the voluntary gift about which they spoke? He who says, this one is for an elevation offering.” Rebbi Ḥama the colleague of the rabbis asked, if he said, “on me is the obligation”, and came back and said, “this one is”? Rebbi Ḥinena asked, would it not be reasonable if he said, “this one is”, and came back and said, “on me is the obligation”? A severe prohibition falls one a simple prohibition but a simple prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

HALAKHAH: [“The House of Shammai say that one may not take the pestle to cut meat on it, but the House of Hillel permit.”] Therefore, not to cut meat on it is forbidden. This is what Rebbi (Abba,) Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav said: 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.

[“The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide.”] They agree that one may not scrape it. Where do we hold? If it is connected to it, it is part of its body. If separated, it 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. As the following: an Antiochene cooking vessel fell on Rebbi Jeremiah on the Sabbath; they thought about it and lifted it. Not that practice follows Rebbi Hoshaia but that Rebbi Jeremiah should not be endangered. They agree that one may not salt it. It was stated: but he might salt meat on it to roast. The colleagues in the name of Rav: A person may salt a large quantity even though he will be able to eat form it only a small quantity. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One salts cunningly, and salts cunningly; he salts here and salts there until he salted everything.

HALAKHAH: “One does not catch fish,” etc. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “ 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: “one does not catch fish from vivaria and 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 there: “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, “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.

“About a wick three things were said as restrictions and three as leniencies. The following three were said as restrictions: One does not make it new on the holiday, nor does one cut one into two pieces, nor does one singe it by fire. The following three were said as leniencies: One softens it, and soaks it in oil, and divides it into two lights by fire.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he needs both of them. It was stated, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Bar Delaia: He brings two candles, introduces it into both of them, and separates them by fire into two candles. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Ḥinena bar Idi in the name of Rav: One cleans the wick on a holiday.

“About a wick three things were said as restrictions and three as leniencies. The following three were said as restrictions: One does not make it new on the holiday, nor does one cut one into two pieces, nor does one singe it by fire. The following three were said as leniencies: One softens it, and soaks it in oil, and divides it into two lights by fire.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he needs both of them. It was stated, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Bar Delaia: He brings two candles, introduces it into both of them, and separates them by fire into two candles. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Ḥinena bar Idi in the name of Rav: One cleans the wick on a holiday.

At Nineveh they needed to make a fastday after Passover. They came to ask Rebbi. He told them, go ahead and make one but do not change the form of prayer. Where may he say it? Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say that he says it in “He Who hears prayer.” Rebbi Yose said to him: Did not Rebbi Ze`ira say in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he did not ask in the benediction “for years”, or that he failed to mention the power of rains in “resurrection of the dead”, he says it at “He Who hears prayer”? But Rebbi said to them, go ahead and make one but do not change the form of prayer! According to the opinion of Rebbi Yose, where does one say it? In the six that he adds. That works for the public which has six. A private person who does not have six, where? Rebbi Ḥinena said, did not Rebbi Ze`ira say in the name of Rav Ḥuna, a private person asks for his personal needs in “He Who hears prayer,” and these are his needs.

Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything they made dependent on usage. There were acacia trees in Migdal Ṣevaya. 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 Abun. 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.

Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena bar Isaac. This entire day Abraham saw the ram being caught at one tree but freed and leaving, caught in that thicket but freed and leaving, caught in this underbrush but freed and leaving. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to him, Abraham. So in the future will your descendants be caught in sins and become entangled with governments: From Babylon to Media, from Media to Greece, from Greece to Edom. He said before Him: Master of the worlds, [will this be] so forever? He said to him, at the end they will be redeemed by the horns of this ram: and the Eternal, God, will blow the horn and go in Southern storms. Text of G (Genizah): Rebbi Hanania ben Rebbi Isaac said: This entire day our father Abraham saw the ram being caught in this underbrush but freed and leaving, caught in this thicket but freed and leaving. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Abraham: Abraham, so in the future your descendants will be caught and entangled with governments. Abraham our forefather said to him, Master of the worlds, will this go on forever? He said to him, no. At the end they will be redeemed by the horns of this ram. This is what is written, The Eternal will appear over them

From where that the song is called atonement? Ḥinena the father of 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 Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The world only continues to exist by the sacrifices. There, we stated: “Simeon the Just was of the remainders of the Great Assembly. He used to say, the world continues to exist by three things, by the Torah, by worship, and by labors of love” All three are in one verse: I shall put My word in your mouth, that is Torah. By the shadow of My hands I shall cover you, these are labors of love; to teach you that he who is occupied with Torah and labors of love merits to dwell in the shadow of the Holy One, praise to Him. That is what is written, how precious is Your grace, o God, and humans take shelter in Your wings’ shadow. To plant the Heavens and give foundation to the earth, these are the sacrifices, and to say to Zion, you are My people, these are Israel. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, we went over all of Scripture and only found this one that Israel was called Zion, and to say to Zion, you are My people. There, we stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the world is existing on three things, on justice, on truth, and on peace. All three are one: If justice is done, truth is accomplished. If truth is accomplished, peace is established. Rebbi Mana said, and all are in one verse, judge truth and law of peace in your gates.

“What is the vow about which they spoke? He who says, on me is the obligation for an elevation offering. What is the voluntary gift about which they spoke? He who says, this one is for an elevation offering.” Rebbi Ḥama the colleague of the rabbis asked, if he said, “on me is the obligation”, and came back and said, “this one is”? Rebbi Ḥinena asked, would it not be reasonable if he said, “this one is”, and came back and said, “on me is the obligation”? A severe prohibition falls one a simple prohibition but a simple prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even Torah scrolls they only permitted to be written in Greek. They investigated and found that the Torah may be correctly translated only into Greek. A villager invented for them Aramaic from the Greek. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Akylas the proselyte translated the Torah before Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua; they praised him [and said to him], you are a superhuman beauty. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, why do we not say there is a rule valid for Torah scrolls which does not apply to Tefillin and Mezuzot, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two sheets, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single sheets. Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe asked, a stronger question, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two hides, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single hides. The colleagues said before Rebbi Mana, or should we say, one column of two different hides? Is that not stronger? He said to them, because even scrolls are not written in this way. One suspends in scrolls; one suspends neither in Tefillin nor in Mezuzot. One does not suspend in scrolls which were written as Tefillin and Mezuzot; one suspends in Tefillin and Mezuzot written as scrolls. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi: If he was writing אלא עם, if the paragraph was made in this way it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi bar Ḥinena: The script of scrolls is used as script of Tefillin and Mezuzot.

There, we stated: “Simeon the Just was of the remainders of the Great Assembly. He used to say, the world continues to exist by three things, by the Torah, by worship, and by labors of love” All three are in one verse: I shall put My word in your mouth, that is Torah. By the shadow of My hands I shall cover you, these are labors of love; to teach you that he who is occupied with Torah and labors of love merits to dwell in the shadow of the Holy One, praise to Him. That is what is written, how precious is Your grace, o God, and humans take shelter in Your wings’ shadow. To plant the Heavens and give foundation to the earth, these are the sacrifices, and to say to Zion, you are My people. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, we went over all of Scripture and only found this one that Israel was called Zion, and to say to Zion, you are My people. There, we stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the world is existing on three things, on justice, on truth, and on peace. All three are one: If justice is done, truth is accomplished. If truth is accomplished, peace is established. Rebbi Mana said, and all are in one verse, judge truth and law of peace in your gates.

If the paragraph was of five verses, he reads all of them. If he did not do so, the following one has to read the two last verses and three from the next paragraph. If he did not do this, does it obstruct? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose went to visit the brother of Jehudah bar Tammuza the relative of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the synagogue of the neck-cloth makers. Rebbi Jeremiah was there and he stopped them. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, does one force? He answered him, here your teacher is stopping them. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Simeon Shara, Rebbi Ḥinena bar Andreas in the name of Rebbi Zakkai from Kabul: If he erred between one word and another one lets him repeat. Rebbi Jeremiah said to Rebbi Ze`ira, does one act like this? He told him, is that still a problem for you? Even if he erred between if and and if one makes him repeat. The people of his town told Rebbi Simeon, the teacher of Terbenth, cut the sentences which our sons are reading. He went and asked Rebbi Ḥanina, who told him, do not listen to them even if they cut off your head. He did not listen to them and they freed him from his teaching position. After some time he came down here. Rebbi Simeon ben Yosina associated with him. He asked him, what goes on in your town? He told him the affair. He asked him, why did you not listen to them? He answered, does one do this? He answered, do we not cut them in the study? He answered, but we repeat and take them together. Rebbi Ze`ira said, if this teacher had been in my time, I would have appointed him Rabbi.

And similarly, Amen Amen, hear hear. An interpreter who stands in front of a Sage is permitted neither to change, nor to circumlocute, nor to add unless he was his father or his teacher. Rebbi Pedat was the speaker of Rebbi Yasa. Things which he had heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in my father’s name. Things which he had not heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in Rebbi Eleazar’s name. Bar Yashita was the speaker of Rebbi Aḥa. Things which he had heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in my father’s name. Things which he had not heard from his father he referred to: so says my teacher in Rebbi Ḥinena’s name. When Rebbi Mana was instructing in a group, things which he had heard from his father in his house he referred to: so says my teacher in Rebbi Jonah’s name. Things which he had heard from his father in the Academy he referred to: so says Rebbi Jonah.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry. In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place, [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

Overturning the beds sometimes is for six, five, four, three {days}. On Friday, six. On Friday before sundown, five. A holiday after the Sabbath, four. The two days of New Year, three. A student of Rebbi Mana instructed a relative of the Patriarch: after he uprights it he does not have to overturn again. How many days did he do it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: He did it for two days. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Immi, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: three. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappus instructed to overturn it even for one day; but he saw in his dream because you rebelled. It was stated: One who stays in an inn does not have to overturn, so they should not say that he is a sorcerer.

Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappus went to visit Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya. He went out to him in dishonorable garb. What is dishonorable garb? Garments which are short-sleeved. He said to him, from where do you have this? He said to him, so acted my teacher Rebbi Simon. He said to him, pray for me. He said, may your breach be fenced in. For all of this year judgment is directed towards this family, as Rebbi Joḥanan said: All Seven the sword is drawn. Up to Thirty it wavers. After twelve months it returns to its sheath. To what can this be likened? To a stone cupola. If one becomes loose, all are loose. But Rebbi Eleazar aid, if a male child was born to this family, the entire family is healed.

Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Jacob bar Idi when Rebbi Eleazar saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things this Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he does not teach the traditions in my name. He said to him, thus they behave among themselves; the younger one does not greet the older since they observe Boys see me and hide themselves, and old people rose and stood. As they were walking, he saw a Bet Midrash. He said to him: Here Rebbi Meïr sat and reported traditions in the name of Rebbi Ismael but he never reported traditions in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. He answered: Everybody knows that Rebbi Meïr was the student of Rebbi Aqiba. He retorted, everybody knows that Rebbi Eleazar is the student of Rebbi Joḥanan. May one pass by the water statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eleazar did well that he did not pass before you. He said to him: Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, you know how to pacify. But Rebbi Joḥanan required that traditions should be reported in his name. Also David begged for divine mercy in this respect, may I dwell in Your tent forever! Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Could David think of living forever? Rather, David meant: May I have the merit that my words will be mentioned in my name in synagogues and houses of study. What profit does he have from this? The son of Tira said: If someone mentions a tradition in the name of its author, the latter’s lips whisper with him in the grave. What is the reason? Dripping from the lips ofthe sleeping ones. Like that bunch of grapes which drips by itself. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappus and Rebbi Simon, one said, like one who drinks spiced wine, the other said, like one who drinks old wine, even though he consumed it, its taste remains in his mouth.

Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said that four congregations are called “congregation”, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites, the cogregation of converts. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, but is it not written, “one injured in his testicles should not come”? That refers to bodily blemishes. But is it not written, “children that will be born to them, the third generation shall come from them”? That is a positive commandment. But the rabbis said, there are three congregations, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites; “they shall not come, they shall not come, they shall not come.”

“He may serve in the watch of either one”. He should not serve. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Yasa, because of the damage to the family.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of 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, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. 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 can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First 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 Hoshaia, 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 cereals? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (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 Meïr 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 both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

So far about a virgin. What about a widow? Rav Ḥinena said, it is enough for a widow that she take half of a virgin’s portion.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? 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 pay money; 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 pay money.

So is the Mishnah: And so those who provide for the orphan girl. Rebbi Ḥinena said, this means that one says to the overseers to take out a loan. For he explains it, if nothing is in the wallet one takes out a loan up to fifty. But if there is money in the wallet, one may add. Rebbi Yose said, this means that one does not say to the overseers to take out a loan. For he explains if there is money in the wallet. But if there is no money one diminishes. As the following, about a girl in the days of Rebbi Immi. He said, let it be held over for the holiday. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to him, you are causing a loss, but give everything, for the Lord of the holiday exists. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina holds with Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose with Rebbi Immi.

HALAKHAH: “A widow, whether after preliminary or definitive marriage,” etc. Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that everything depends on sustenance. If he had agreed to sustain her after preliminary marriage, she may sell without court supervision If he had agreed to sustain her after definitive marriage, she may sell only under court supervision. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person is concerned for his widow’s dignity whether after preliminary or after definitive marriage.

HALAKHAH: “One makes a vow to assessors and to people who condemn property,” etc. To assessors in time of indiction; to condemners in times of expropriations. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a dangerous situation, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was civilized, it is forbidden. It was stated: One hangs on Gentiles and government but not on Jews, because the strong-armed will fall and he should not risk that the prior [obligations] fall on him.

“I am a nazir after 30 days, but already a Samson-nazir.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is reasonable that the Torah nezirut should preëmpt the Samson-nezirut. What is the reason? “Thus he shall proceed, following the Torah of his nazir vow;” if his nazir vow follows the Torah. This excludes Samson-nezirut which is not from the Torah.

HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave a nazir,” etc. This “I also”, what do you subsume under it? Does “I also” refer to the entire sentence, or does “I also” only refer to part of the sentence? If “I also” refers to the entire sentence, he says “I also am a nazir.” If “I also” only refers to part of the sentence, he said “I am a nazir.” It was stated in the House of Rebbi: “ ‘I also’ refers to the entire sentence.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if some person said, I am a nazir for 100 days, and another person heard him and said, “I also”; the first one is a nazir for 100 days, the other is a nazir for 30 days unless he says, “I am like him, I am the same as he is.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “I am obligated to shave half [a nazir]. Then he said, I am a nazir. If he shaved after 30 days he has fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this: “ ‘I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave a nazir,’ if another heard him and said: ‘I also shall be and I obligate myself to shave another nazir,’ if they are clever, they will shave one another.” But not themselves. Because he said, “I shall be a nazir and obligate myself to shave a nazir”. But if he said, “I obligate myself to shave half a nazir” and then he said, “I shall be a nazir,” if he shaved himself he has acquitted himself of his obligation. One understands that the second one can shave the first, but can the first shave the second? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: This means that a person can take upon himself the sacrifice of a nazir who only in the future will make his vow. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira inferred three [statements]: It implies that if he shaved himself he acquitted himself. It implies that a person obligates himself for another’s nezirut sacrifices of a future vow. It implies that a person chooses another’s nezirut sacrifices without the other’s knowledge. But he cannot dedicate [the animals] without the other’s knowledge.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second, the second can be used for the first. Where do we hold? If he said, “I am a nazir twice,” a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled. If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. But we must hold that he said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” If he said, “these are for nezirut.” But if he said, “these are for my nezirut; those are for the other nezirut,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he finished the first nezirut, as soon as he brought a sacrifice and shaved, the first is credited for the second. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees: not unless he brings all his sacrifices, following the rabbis; but following Rebbi Simeon even if he brings only one sacrifice. If he dedicated both together, he has only one in his hand. If he dedicated each of them separately or brought each of them for the other, he did not acquit himself [of his obligation]. This means that as far as holiness goes, they became holy. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,” i. e., that his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. It is different, because he still is in nezirut. One understands the second for the first. The first for the second? Rebbi Jehudah said, this supports Rebbi Eleazar. But did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa command the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees; not unless he brings all his sacrifices. They wanted to say, following the rabbis. But here, we hold with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, did we not argue about one who said, “I am a nazir”? He really should be a nazir only once. You were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice. Is it not enough that you were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice, that now you say, he has nothing in his hands?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: “The ram he shall offer, etc.” Why does the verse say, “he shall offer”? Start the procedure with it. Rebbi Ḥinena objected before Rebbi Mana: But is it not written: “He shall offer his flour offering and his libation”? Should he not start with them? How is that? Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If he shaved for any of the three, he satisfied his obligation. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Who is the Tanna of: “All purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, “all purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: “The ram he shall offer, etc.” Why does the verse say, “he shall offer”? Start the procedure with it. Rebbi Ḥinena objected before Rebbi Mana: But is it not written: “He shall offer his flour offering and his libation”? Should he not start with them? How is that? Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If he shaved for any of the three, he satisfied his obligation. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Who is the Tanna of: “All purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, “all purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings.”

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There, he says: “he has to repeat only for 30,” and here, he says so? Rebbi Joḥanan says, he has to repeat all his sacrifices. It is obvious, if it would have been valid without him becoming impure, then why is it not valid if later he becomes impure? Rebbi Ḥinena said, is that not Rebbi Eliezer’s? And Rebbi Eliezer follows the Shammaites, as it was stated: Concerning a nazir who lost all his hair, the House of Shammai say, he has to move a shaving knife over his head; the House of Hillel say, he does not need to move a shaving knife over his head.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Abba bar Ḥana: Two who brought a bill of divorce do not have to declare: It was written before us and signed before us. Rebbi Yose ben Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They have to. He himself who brought the bill of divorce does not have to deliver the bill in the presence of two [witnesses] in order to declare her a divorcee in the presence of two. “If he gave her the bill, took it from her, and threw it into the sea or into a river. If later he says to her that it was an empty papyrus or a paid bond, he cannot be believed to disqualify her.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he cannot disqualify her, who can? He said to him, since she was declared a divorcee in the presence of two [witnesses], he cannot be believed to disqualify her. If he gave her a bill of divorce which was found to be invalid, they forced him to give her a replacement. This case came before the rabbis and they declared it valid. Did we not say, he cannot be believed to disqualify her? There, the flaw was not proved; here the flaw was proved. As the following: Ḥinena, the son of Rebbi Asi, was a medical doctor and threw a bill of divorce to his wife. She cried. Her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus. The case came before the rabbis and they took it into account. But did not Rebbi Yasa say in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If the designation was checked and found to be based on [the testimony of] women or children, the designation is invalid? There, the designation was not mentioned. But here the name “bill of divorce” was mentioned. And some want to say, if he asserted that it was a valid bill of divorce, but she cried, her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.” If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco shall acquire it for me, Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”? Rebbi Abba said, who would deny it?

Rav said, none of these are invalid except for the last which is invalid. Issi said, all are invalid except for the first which is not invalid. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, all are invalid. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implied that all are invalid since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is invalid. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implied that none are invalid since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. Does the word of Rebbi Eleazar imply that none are invalid? Since Rebbi Eleazar asked: if one wrote a bill of preliminary marriage not for a specific name, does preliminary marriage take hold? If he had a problem with divorce, would he ask about preliminary marriage? Since in the case of divorce, where the document is required to be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce will not touch her, is it not logical that in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage take hold with her? That should be obvious to him. Really, the following is obvious to him: Since one inferred the bill of preliminary marriage only from divorce, and in the case of divorce she is not divorced, in the case of preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married.

Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya, [this is Rebbi’s opinion.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, and it was stated so: “All conditions invalidate a bill of divorce, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say, what invalidates orally invalidates in writing, and what does not invalidate orally does not invalidate in writing.” “You are permitted to marry anybody except Mr. X,” because this invalidates orally it invalidates in writing. “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz”; because this does not invalidate orally it does not invalidate in writing. Rebbi Yudan said, when do they disagree? If he rescinded his condition. But if he did nor rescind his condition, even Rebbi agrees. Otherwise, we would have to say that all conditions which were stated for bills of divorce do not follow Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥinena said, there when he writes “on condition,” here if he gives “on condition.” Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does this imply that Rebbi does not recognize formulaic texts? He answered him, about whom do you ask? About Rebbi! He follows Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates formulaic texts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, everybody agrees that all conditions invalidate a bill of divorce. There came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah and he acted following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Yose said to him, does one neglect Rebbi Joḥanan and act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered him, is Rebbi Joḥanan’s instruction an instruction but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s instruction not an instruction? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, but he understood a baraita and acted accordingly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish fights against Rebbi Joḥanan when he disagrees with him only to extract a ruling from him. If he finds a baraita, he depends on it; if he does not find a baraita, he retracts his opinion before Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sets aside produce,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar ben Antigonos in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Yannai: This means that nothing is in disorder for 24 hours but the last day. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Nothing is in order for 24 hours but the first day, as we have stated there: “If a miqweh was measured and found deficient.” Ḥinena the son of Rav Assi bar Mamal in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is to negate the words of Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated: “If they were lost, one worries about them for 24 hours back, the words of Rebbi Eleazar.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ammi. One said: “Plough it well then, I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said: “May you succeed” For him who says, plough it well, then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical, what means “one greets them” in a Jewish way? “May you succeed.” For him who says to the Gentile “may you succeed”? 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, are you not Jewish? 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,” 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; not only do you 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 Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ammi. One said: “Plough it well then, I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said: “May you succeed” For him who says, plough it well, then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical, what means “one greets them” in a Jewish way? “May you succeed.” For him who says to the Gentile “may you succeed”? 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, are you not Jewish? 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,” 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; not only do you not say, come and take from these blessings for yourselves, but you roll over us pro-rated contributions and fines, head taxes and annonae.

So we have established that Gentiles have no preliminary marriage. Do they have divorce? Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi and Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of the great Rebbi Ḥuna of Sepphoris: Either they have no divorce, or either of them may divorce the other. Rebbi Joḥanan from Sepphoris, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: “For the divorcer is hateful, says the Eternal, Israel’s God.” In Israel I gave divorce, I did not give divorce among the nations of the world. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: In the entire paragraph it is written “the Eternal, Sabaot”; only here it is written “Israel’s God.” To teach you that the Holy One, praise to Him, did lend his name only to Jewish divorce.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written: “If a person give to his neighbor money or vessels to watch over.” If to teach that the court will not act on less that a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written: “To incur liability for it”? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?) From there, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two obols. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two perutot, that the claim should be about a perutah’s worth and the confession about a perutah’s worth. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two obols, also “vessels” means two oboli’s worth.

From where even if he fell ill? The verse says, “in the seventh year he shall leave into freedom gratis.” I could think, even if he fled; the verse says, “six years he shall work.” What did you see to include this and to exclude that? After the verse included, it excluded. I am including the one who remains in his power and am exluding the one who is not in his power. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said that Rav Hoshaia asked: I understand that if he fell ill and fled afterwards, he has to make up [the time lost]. If he fled and then fell ill? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, let us hear from the following: “If a woman rebels against her husband, one writes him a bill of rebellion on her ketubah.” And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One writes a bill of rebellion on the ketubah of a menstruating woman or a sick one, a preliminarily married one and one waiting for her levir. Where do we hold? If she rebelled against him while she was menstruating, the Torah instructed her to rebel. But we must hold that she rebelled when she was not menstruating and then started menstruating. Here she is unable to rebel, nevertheless you say, one writes. Here also, if he rebelled and then fell ill he has to make up. For he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would not have become sick. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that argument even works in the first case. If he fell ill and fled afterwards, he has to make up, since he can say to him, if you had stayed with me, you would have recuperated sooner.

“Similarly, a swarm of bees is his if the owners had given up hope of recovery.” Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is about a swarm taken in flight and from a schoolboy, and only immediately. But if one left and returned, I am saying that he said it because of fear, or being seduced. It was stated: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, it is a stipulation by the court that this one may cut a branch and pay for it since on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

Rebbi Ḥinena ben Ḥanania said: I was promenading at Gufta of Sepphoris when I saw a Minean taking a skull, throwing it into the air, after which it came down transforming itself into a calf. I went and told it to my father. He said, if you ate from it, it was an action; otherwise it was an illusion.

And like planted nails. Why does he not say, “like fixed nails and planted trees”? They chose and selected the iron and improved the planting of iron rods. Another explanation, and like planted nails. Just as this nail, once it has been fixed, if you then remove it from its place, its place remains visible; so everybody against whom the rabbis stretched out their hand, even if afterwards they took him back, in the end he will take what is coming to him from their hands. Another explanation, and like planted nails; it is written watches. Since there are 24 watches, there should be 24 nails. How many nails should it have? Rebbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥinena said seven, corresponding to your days are your steps. Rebbi Aḥa explained following Rebbi Ḥanina: nine. Rebbi put eleven on one [shoe] and thirteen on the other, for the number of watches. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: may one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. It was stated: One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may anoint them or dip them in water. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. They asked Rebbi, who told them, one does not scrape. Rebbi Zeˋira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rav and were anointing and rinsing, but not scraping. It was stated: A person should wear new boots and sandals only if he walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The people from the house of Bar Qappara said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Study of Rebbi Hoshaia. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rebbi Hoshaia’s store. It was stated: Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it. Another explanation, and like planted nails. If words about Torah are spelled out clearly by their authors, they are sweet to their listeners like well-ordered saplings. But if they come out confused, they are as bitter for their listeners as nails.

Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappus said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the Temple. When they put their lintel next to My lintel, their doorposts next to My doorpost, with the wall between Me and them. They were important people; they could not go and pray in the Temple every time, so they prayed in their house and the Holy One, praise to Him, considers it as if they had prayed in the Temple. My forefathers who built for You all this glory, so much more that You should spare my life.

Rebbi Ismael stated: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sopherim all are severe. You can realize that this is so since we have stated: “He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable.” Rebbi Ḥinena, the son of Rebbi Ada, in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets since it is written, do not preach, they preach. And it is written, I shall preach to you for wine and liquor. The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two diplomatarii to a province. About one of them it was written, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, do not believe him. About the other it was written, even if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, believe him. So about a prophet is written, he gives you a sign or miracle. But here it is written, according to the teachings that they will teach you.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. Ḥizqiah says, there is disagreement between them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, interpreting the verse is between them; there are Tannaim who state, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary, and there are Tannain who state, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There he says, even if he did not know. But here he says, not unless he knew. There, by which he sinned, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, while he was impure, in all cases. Rebbi Ḥinena said, here “by what” is not written. The argument of Rebbi Joshua seems inverted. There he says, while he was impure, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, by which he sinned, in any case. How does Rebbi Eliezer uphold by what? This excludes the one who is occupied.

Rebbi Ḥinena understood all this from the following: I did not eat from it in my mourning, but I drank?

Rebbi Ḥinena asked: Why did he not say, “an oath if I would eat of X” without detail? Because of Rebbi Simeon. But if following Rebbi Simeon, how could we state the Day of Atonement, since Rebbi Simeon stated, you shall deprive yourselves, of what is (forbidden) to you, not of what is (permitted) to you. Only one has a fixed rate sacrifice, the other a variable one.

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.

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. If a person give to his neighbor, etc. If to teach that the court will not act on less than a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written, to incur liability for it? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. From here, that it should be more than silver. And what is more than silver? Two oboloi. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot. The smallest silver coin is an obolos. So why is it not an obolos? Or vessels; since vessels are two, also “money” is two. How do the House of Shammai interpret or vessels? Following what Rebbi Nathan stated, or vessels, including clay vessels. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is liable. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two peruṭot, that the claim should be about a peruṭah’s worth and the confession about a peruṭah’s worth. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since vessels are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two oboloi, also “vessels” means two oboloi’s worth.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so.

One should not eat meat or drink wine. It was taught in a Baraita: But one may eat salted (pickled) meat and drink wine from his vat. How long does pickled meat retain its original (natural) taste (so that it is prohibited on the eve of the ninth of Ab)? Said R. Ḥinena b. Kahana in the name of Samuel, as long as it is within the time set for the eating of the meat of a peace offering (i. e., 60 hours). How long is wine to be considered as coming fresh from the vat? As long as it is fermenting. It was taught in a Baraita: New wine that is still fermenting does not come under the law forbidding to drink liquids left uncovered. How long does the fermentation last? Three days.