invalidity

All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.

All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.

One who filled the water with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, or filled the water for himself and for another man, or filled two jars at the same time, the water of both is invalid, for work causes invalidity whether one acts for oneself or for another person.

If insects or creeping things fell into it, and they burst apart or the color [of the water] changed, the contents become invalid. A beetle causes invalidity in any case, because it is like a tube. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob ruled: a maggot or a weevil of the grain causes no invalidity, because they contain no moisture.

If insects or creeping things fell into it, and they burst apart or the color [of the water] changed, the contents become invalid. A beetle causes invalidity in any case, because it is like a tube. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob ruled: a maggot or a weevil of the grain causes no invalidity, because they contain no moisture.

If a domesticated beast or a wild animal drank from it, it becomes invalid. All birds cause invalidity, except the dove since it only sucks up the water. All creeping things do not cause invalidity, except the weasel since it laps up the water. Rabban Gamaliel ruled: the snake also because it vomits. Rabbi Eliezer ruled: the mouse also.

If a domesticated beast or a wild animal drank from it, it becomes invalid. All birds cause invalidity, except the dove since it only sucks up the water. All creeping things do not cause invalidity, except the weasel since it laps up the water. Rabban Gamaliel ruled: the snake also because it vomits. Rabbi Eliezer ruled: the mouse also.

First [degree] and second [degree uncleanness] in terumah are unclean and convey uncleanness; Third [degree uncleanness] causes invalidity but does not convey uncleanness. And fourth [degree uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish containing holy food.

Second [degree uncleanness] in common food conveys uncleanness to unconsecrated liquids and causes invalidity to terumah food. Third [degree of uncleanness] in terumah conveys uncleanness to consecrated liquids and causes invalidity to holy food that was prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to holy food; But if it was only prepared under conditions of cleanness appropriate to terumah, it conveys uncleanness at a first and at a second remove, and causes invalidity to holy food at one additional remove.

Second [degree uncleanness] in common food conveys uncleanness to unconsecrated liquids and causes invalidity to terumah food. Third [degree of uncleanness] in terumah conveys uncleanness to consecrated liquids and causes invalidity to holy food that was prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to holy food; But if it was only prepared under conditions of cleanness appropriate to terumah, it conveys uncleanness at a first and at a second remove, and causes invalidity to holy food at one additional remove.

Second [degree uncleanness] in common food conveys uncleanness to unconsecrated liquids and causes invalidity to terumah food. Third [degree of uncleanness] in terumah conveys uncleanness to consecrated liquids and causes invalidity to holy food that was prepared in conditions of cleanness appropriate to holy food; But if it was only prepared under conditions of cleanness appropriate to terumah, it conveys uncleanness at a first and at a second remove, and causes invalidity to holy food at one additional remove.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent. The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food. The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food. The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent. The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food. The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food. The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent. The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food. The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food. The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent. The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food. The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food. The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent. The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food. The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food. The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the three of them are equivalent. The first degree of uncleanness in holy food, in terumah or in common food: conveys uncleanness at two removes and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of terumah; and causes invalidity in common food. The second [degree of uncleanness] in the case of all of them: conveys uncleanness at one remove and causes invalidity at one additional remove in the case of holy food; it conveys uncleanness to common liquids and causes invalidity of terumah food. The third degree of uncleanness in the case of all them: conveys uncleanness to holy liquids and causes invalidity to holy food.

The Passover sacrifice you return whole, you do not return it carved. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Because of its invalidity. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. You cannot eat it for it is written, do not eat from it raw. You cannot roast it for he should not be roasting it on the Sabbath. If you are telling him that he may do it, he will not roast it completely when it still is daylight. Since you tell him that it is prohibited, he will roast it completely when it is still daylight. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, if he roasted it whole and carved it up, may he go back and heat it?

HALAKHAH: “If the minor received it and became an adult,” etc. There came a case before Rebbi Immi that a slave brought a bill of divorce; [he declared it] valid. Rebbi Abba said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that if a slave brought a bill of divorce, it would be invalid? Rebbi Assi said, if not for Rebbi Abba, we would have permitted a married woman! Even if you say that Rebbi Assi did not accept what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, did he not accept what the rabbis said? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave could accept a bill of manumission [for delivery] but he should not accept [a bill of divorce] as we do. They thought, he formulated “he should not accept,” therefore, if he transgressed and accepted, it would be valid. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: It happened that she was a Cohen’s wife and they were not afraid of a hint of invalidity.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.” He explains it, with the essential text. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines about one subject is invalid in any case.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said it never is a bill of divorce unless he declares at the moment of delivery: “This is your bill of divorce.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yannai: There is not even a hint of invalidity on her. Cahana said, this implies that they did not worry. If they did worry, might he not have said “you are permitted to any man” when it was still in her hand? Rebbi Aḥa said, this implies that they did worry. If they did not worry, could he not divorce by any power he has to divorce?

“One estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one sees a person and asks him, how much would you give that such pain would not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give. Mar Uqba said, the Mishnah is “how much a person would ask to be paid,” and you say so? But one sees a person and asks him, how much would you ask that such pain not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give. Ben Azai said, one gives food invalidity. What is food invalidity? Before that, I was eating lentils and vegetables but now I can only eat eggs and chicken. What he asks one gives him. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, a Roman who was sick would not go into battle until he could eat all he had been missing those days.

“One estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one sees a person and asks him, how much would you give that such pain would not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give. Mar Uqba said, the Mishnah is “how much a person would ask to be paid,” and you say so? But one sees a person and asks him, how much would you ask that such pain not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give. Ben Azai said, one gives food invalidity. What is food invalidity? Before that, I was eating lentils and vegetables but now I can only eat eggs and chicken. What he asks one gives him. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, a Roman who was sick would not go into battle until he could eat all he had been missing those days.

Ten [handbreadths]. What is the reason of Shmuel? As its validity, so is its invalidity. Just as its validity [is effected by a height of] ten handbreadths, so is its invalidity [effected by] ten handbreadths

Ten [handbreadths]. What is the reason of Shmuel? As its validity, so is its invalidity. Just as its validity [is effected by a height of] ten handbreadths, so is its invalidity [effected by] ten handbreadths

Kinofoth are different, since they are permanent. But, behold the case of one Sukkah above another, which is also permanent; and Shmuel nevertheless said, ‘As its validity so is its invalidity’? They said: In the latter case, [when it is a question] of invalidating a Sukkah, [the upper one must be ten [handbreadths] high, but here, [where it is a question] of making a tent, even less than ten [handbreadths suffices] also to constitute a tent.