invalidate

If one checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it. Up to three days it is certain, after that in doubt Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar, the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard this from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? For three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Yasa in the name of the rabbis, who come and hear from the House of Study of Bar Iṭyan, similar to the statement of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi about an amphora. If he lost a smooth needle and then found it rusty. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure, the last pure, the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I also heard that from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? The first three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If he came at the end of (a week) [40 days] and found it clearly to be vinegar, [did it clearly become vinegar immediately] or only from that moment in the future? Rebbi Isaac asked: If the crucial time passed at the end of forty days, did the importance of the crucial time invalidate that of forty days or did the importance of forty days invalidate that of the crucial time?

If one checked an amphora to continuously give heave from it. Up to three days it is certain, after that in doubt Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is wine, the last vinegar, the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I heard this from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? For three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Yasa in the name of the rabbis, who come and hear from the House of Study of Bar Iṭyan, similar to the statement of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi about an amphora. If he lost a smooth needle and then found it rusty. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it certainly is impure, the last pure, the middle ones are in doubt. Rebbi Abbahu said, I also heard that from him. What does and says Rebbi Joḥanan? The first three days it is certain, after that in doubt. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If he came at the end of (a week) [40 days] and found it clearly to be vinegar, [did it clearly become vinegar immediately] or only from that moment in the future? Rebbi Isaac asked: If the crucial time passed at the end of forty days, did the importance of the crucial time invalidate that of forty days or did the importance of forty days invalidate that of the crucial time?

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

But R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : It is "Who formest light." When Rab Isaac b. Joseph came [from Palestine], he said : The statement of R. Zerika was not explicitly made but was inferred ; for what R. Zerika stated that R. Ammi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish was : This teaches that the benedictions do not invalidate one another.

Now it is quite right if thou maintainest that [the priests] recited "Who formest light" ; then it would follow that the benedictions do not invalidate one another, for they omitted "With abounding love."

Shouldest thou, on the other hand, maintain that they recited "With abounding love," how would it follow that the benedictions do not invalidate one another? Perhaps the reason they omitted "Who formest light" was because it was not yet time for that prayer, and when the proper time arrived, they said it!

It might have been inferred that it was certainly "With abounding love" that [the priests] recited, and when the proper time for reciting "Who formest light" arrived, they said it; and what means "The benedictions do not invalidate one another"? The order of the benedictions.

This is obvious! The statement: "the lower one is valid and the upper one is invalid" was necessary. For what might you have said: we should invalidate [the lower sukkah] as a preventive measure lest one also joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh, therefore it teaches us [that it is valid].

How much [space] should there be between [the roof of] one sukkah and that of the other to invalidate the lower one?

R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Herbs concerning which the sages said that a person fulfills with them his obligation on Pesah, convey ritual defilement, do not act as an interposition to ritual defilement and invalidate a sukkah in the same manner as an air space What is the reason? — Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there

And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. [But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid.

We have learned: if he placed over it a plank four hand breadths wide, it is valid. It is well according to Rav who says that whether in the middle or at the sides [the invalid covering must be no less than] four cubits [to invalidate it]; for this reason it is [here] valid; but according to Shmuel who says that at the middle a width of four [handbreadths invalidates], why is it here valid? Here what are we dealing with? When [the plank was placed at] the side.

It is well according to him who says that whether in the middle or at the sides it needs four cubits [of invalid covering to invalidate a sukkah], for this reason it is here valid; but according to him who says that in the middle four [handbreadths of invalid skhakh invalidate] why is it valid?

It is well according to him who says that whether in the middle or at the sides it needs four cubits [of invalid covering to invalidate a sukkah], for this reason it is here valid; but according to him who says that in the middle four [handbreadths of invalid skhakh invalidate] why is it valid?

R. Hoshiah raised a difficulty: Let it be regarded as no better than air space, does then air space of less than three [handbreadths] invalidate a small sukkah?

Come and hear: "And [regarding] a big [Etrog, the maximum is small enough] so that he can hold two in his one hand; the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says, 'Even [if the Etrog is so big that he can only hold] one in his two hands.'" What is the reasoning [of Rabbi Yehudah]? Is it not because he requires beauty? No. Seeing as Rabba said, "The Lulav [is held] the right [hand] and the Etrog is in the left." Sometimes, they will be switched, and so you will flip them, and [if the Etrog is as large as Rabbi Yose allows,] you will invalidate it [by dropping it and breaking the Pitom].