ira

It was stated: If he burned the size of an olive outside he is liable; less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The public has fulfilled its obligation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, since it was stated that if he burned the size of an olive outside he is liable, from this you infer that less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable.

Rebbi Eleazar said, limbs and fat which were not consumed before the evening one builds into a pyre and burns them separately; for them one pushes aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba: The Mishnah implies this: “Every day there were four arrangements.” What does one understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, “and this day five”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: May something which is not obstructive push aside? He answered him, there are the witnesses for the New Moon who are not obstructive and push aside, as we have stated there: “for a distance of a night and day one desecrates the Sabbath and comes for testimony of the New Moon.”

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he should not err. Rebbi Zeˋira said, that he should finish his sprinkling with “seven”. But was it not stated, “seven and one”? Rebbi Abun said, it is written, before the cover .. seven. Why does the verse say, he shall sprinkle? That the first sprinkling should be counted with them.

It is written, he shall sprinkle it on the cover. I could think on its top, the verse says, in front of the cover. I could think on its front, the verse says, on, in front of. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it needs to touch; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it does not need to touch. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: he shall sprinkle it on the cover and in front of the cover. Since “the cover” mentioned there means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch, also “the cover” mentioned here means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya thinks that the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the upwards sprinkling of the bull, but it is not so, but the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the downwards sprinkling of the bull:

If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? May a person think of half an atonement? But it is so: If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups [and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups,] to give from one between the beams, and from one on the gobelins, and from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hila, since they disagreed:

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away.. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away.. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

And here, in Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, he must pour all three; in Rebbi Hila’s opinion, he must pour only the one from which he sprinkled.

It was stated: “One commits larceny with blood, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated. You only have extirpation of persons from it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon.

It was stated: “One commits larceny with blood, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated. You only have extirpation of persons from it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon.

The rabbis say, three for qualification and three for disqualification. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, 43 for qualification and 43 for disqualification. Therefore the rabbis say, any seven are atonement by themselves. [Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, each single one is atonement by itself.] Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon: he finished atoning for the holy, even if there is only one giving, the Torah says “he finished”.

So is the Mishnah: “One brings two and he draws new lots for them. He shall say, ‘the one for which the lot for Hashem is drawn shall be taken in its stead.’” Which of them is sacrificed first? Rav said, the second in the second pair; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second in the first pair. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: he shall make it a purification sacrifice, of the first {pair.} Rebbi La said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: he shall make it a purification sacrifice, he established it for dependency lest it be pushed aside. This is parallel to what Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, he shall make it a purification sacrifice, he established it for dependency that its companion be paired with it. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, if the second in the second pair died, would the second in the first pair be pushed aside? There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: then the second in the first pair already is pushed aside. [So much more would Rav’s reasoning be inverted? If the second in the second pair died, the second in the second pair already is pushed aside.]

So is the Mishnah: “One brings two and he draws new lots for them. He shall say, ‘the one for which the lot for Hashem is drawn shall be taken in its stead.’” Which of them is sacrificed first? Rav said, the second in the second pair; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second in the first pair. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: he shall make it a purification sacrifice, of the first {pair.} Rebbi La said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: he shall make it a purification sacrifice, he established it for dependency lest it be pushed aside. This is parallel to what Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, he shall make it a purification sacrifice, he established it for dependency that its companion be paired with it. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, if the second in the second pair died, would the second in the first pair be pushed aside? There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: then the second in the first pair already is pushed aside. [So much more would Rav’s reasoning be inverted? If the second in the second pair died, the second in the second pair already is pushed aside.]

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

Rebbi Zeriqan said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they be burned according to their rules? What is his problem? If they became impure before the blood was poured, but if they became impure after the blood was poured I am applying to it, at its appointed time, even on the Sabbath, at its appointed time, even in impurity. [Rebbi Yose said, there where it is written at its appointed time; you do not infer anything from it.] Rebbi Mana said, does not Rebbi Yose refrain from applying it here? He applies it to the bull of the Anointed and the Congregation {he said to him}.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall collapsed in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew. How far? Two Amoraim. One said, up to his nose; the other said, up to his navel. He who said, up to his nose, about one who was healthy; he who said up to his navel, about one who was intoxicated.

A positive commandment, even if he did not repent. A prohibition? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, only if he repented. If one said, “the elevation offering does not atone,” does the elevation offering not atone? It atones even against his will. But if he said, “it is impossible that the elevation offering atone for me,” it does not atone against his will. If one said, “the Day of Atonement does not atone,” It atones. “I cannot accept that it atone for me,” it atones against his will. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, it is not up to a person to tell the King, “you are no king.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat atones. How does it atone? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in small pieces. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: “There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram: The Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone without the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram since the ram atones immediately but the Day of Atonement only atones at nightfall.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat atones. How does it atone? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in small pieces. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: “There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram: The Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone without the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram since the ram atones immediately but the Day of Atonement only atones at nightfall.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat atones. How does it atone? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in small pieces. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: “There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram: The Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone without the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram since the ram atones immediately but the Day of Atonement only atones at nightfall.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately

From where that a declaration of forfeiture by a court makes it ownerless? It is written: Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction and he shall be separated from the community of the Diaspora. From where that it is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa understood it from the following: “One intercalates years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated.” The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is only before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba when Rebbi Eliezer saw him and hid himself before him. He said, these two things the Babylonian does to me: First, that he does not greet me, and second, that he hides himself. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said to him, thus they behave among themselves; Rebbi Ze`ira did not greet Rabba since they observe Boys see me and hide themselves; elders rise and stand. He asked him, may one pass by a cursed statue? He said to him, do you want to honor it? Pass it by and blind its eyes! He said to him, Rebbi Eliezer did well that he did not pass before you. The other thing the Babylonian does, that he does not mention my tradition in my name. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Assi came to him. They said to him, Rabbi, so it happened that it was a synagogue of weavers, about a bolt topped by a lock about which Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose disagreed until they tore a Torah scroll in their rage. Would you think that they tore a Torah scroll? But that a Torah scroll was torn. There was an old man there, Rebbi Yose ben Qisma, who said, I wonder whether this synagogue will not be a place of foreign worship. He came back and asked, where is the colleague? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi came and said to him, it is written, all that the Eternal commanded to His servant Moses so Joshua commanded. When Joshua explained, did he mention every time “so said Moses”? No, he explained and they knew that it was Moses’s teaching. So also Eleazar sits and explains and everybody knows that it is your teaching. He said to them, why do you not know to pacify like our colleague Ben Idi?

Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said, only in image a man wanders. It is written many a man professes good will, this is the rest of mankind; but where will you find one you can trust, that is Rebbi Ze`ira. As Rebbi Ze`ira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said, only in image a man wanders. It is written many a man professes good will, this is the rest of mankind; but where will you find one you can trust, that is Rebbi Ze`ira. As Rebbi Ze`ira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said, only in image a man wanders. It is written many a man professes good will, this is the rest of mankind; but where will you find one you can trust, that is Rebbi Ze`ira. As Rebbi Ze`ira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said, only in image a man wanders. It is written many a man professes good will, this is the rest of mankind; but where will you find one you can trust, that is Rebbi Ze`ira. As Rebbi Ze`ira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

HALAKHAH: [Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of three baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit. It is stated:] One distributes from the lodge into three boxes of three seah each, which is nine seah, which is seah; it is written on them ג ,ב ,א. Why is ,ג ב ,א written on them? To say that one does not take from the first before one has taken from the second, and not from the second before one has taken from the third.

[There, we have stated: “One who brings out wine to mix a cup.” Rebbi Ze`ira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of a cup? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups which they said add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They disagree about one who gives his property to the Temple. But if he gives his flock to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the altar. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Where do they disagree? About one who gives his flock to the Temple, but if he gave his property to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the upkeep of the Temple. The opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira can be understood. It is difficult for Rebbi Abba. Is an animal not for the altar? An animal is for the altar. But why did this man not specify? It is as if he said, it only should be for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference. The disagreement is both about one who gives his property to the Temple as about one who gives his flock to the Temple.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They disagree about one who gives his property to the Temple. But if he gives his flock to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the altar. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Where do they disagree? About one who gives his flock to the Temple, but if he gave his property to the Temple, everybody agrees that it is for the upkeep of the Temple. The opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira can be understood. It is difficult for Rebbi Abba. Is an animal not for the altar? An animal is for the altar. But why did this man not specify? It is as if he said, it only should be for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference. The disagreement is both about one who gives his property to the Temple as about one who gives his flock to the Temple.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua: Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird. And here, he says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagari said before Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The reason of this Tanna: But if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered. Why does the verse say, impure? But even impure for this denomination. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, but if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered; anything which could be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place does not effect substitution. This excludes the female of a bird which even though it cannot be sacrificed here is fit to be sacrificed at another place. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Are there not the animals used for active or passive bestiality, which can be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place, and they effect substitution? He said to them, also I did speak only about really impure ones. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise?

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagari said before Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The reason of this Tanna: But if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered. Why does the verse say, impure? But even impure for this denomination. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, but if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered; anything which could be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place does not effect substitution. This excludes the female of a bird which even though it cannot be sacrificed here is fit to be sacrificed at another place. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Are there not the animals used for active or passive bestiality, which can be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place, and they effect substitution? He said to them, also I did speak only about really impure ones. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise?

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. The earlier generations ploughed, and sowed, and weeded, and trimmed, and hoed, cut, made sheaves, threshed, winnowed, milled, sifted, made dough, kneaded, and baked. But we do not even have a mouth to eat. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yair.

HALAKHAH: The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said (more)<to his son>` this was taught for their monetary value. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices? But they followed the majority of cases: If most are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings, so it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse.

Rav Hoshaia asked: If he brought a plank and put it protruding on top of a pillar. It is obvious that if he measures from the plank there are twenty cubits, if he measures from the ground it is not twenty cubits. How do you treat this? As disqualified space, as disqualified thatching? If you are treating it as disqualified space, it disqualifies by three hand-breadths. If you are treating it as disqualified thatching, it only disqualifies by four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Ḥizqiah: Disqualified thatching only disqualifies by four cubits, since it serves only to permit the sukkah. Rebbi Miasha said, I am wondering what was Rav Hoshaia’s problem? Why does he not infer from the statement of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, since we stated there: “If one makes the wall hanging from top to bottom, if it is more than three hand-breadths higher than the ground it is disqualified;” and Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if he does not sit and eats in the shade of the walls, but if he was sitting and eating in the shade of the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, that of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal is not an inference since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal learned it from another Mishnah, as we have stated there: “From a balcony above the sea one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high either above or below.” And Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water the full length of a pail. But one cannot compare it. The sea is karmelit, neither private nor public domain. But here the Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. From the floor of the sukkah you measure twenty cubits.

From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it refers only to: make a golden wreath as its frame all around? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth.

Rebbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to move anything from in it into the house or from the house into it? But we are dealing with the case when it was indicating to them the geographic directions. This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six {hand-breadths}. But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons. [We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons.] It is reasonable that the House of Rebbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rebbi Yannai said, [the ark was nine and] the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq learns if from the Wagons. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten {hand-breadths} high? Rebbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rebbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to move anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called Bet Rata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards (Peah), a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards (Peah), a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

It is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

It is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

One who makes a sukkah for himself, says: “He Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to make a sukkah.” For others: “to make a sukkah in that one’s name.” If he enters it, he says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to dwell in a sukkah.” After he recited the benediction in the first night of the holiday he does not have to recite it again. Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Does one have to mention the time after nightfall? Rav Hoshaia said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ila said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Zevida said, one has to mention the time. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada formulated it as a tradition: Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Oshaia: After nightfall one has to mention the time.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.” What? Really dwellers or even appropriate for dwellers? Since an old man stated before Rebbi Ze`ira, “even the lower one is qualified,” there is nobody who says “even” if he does not agree with the preceding. This implies really dwellers.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Only if he drew them (on the spot) [for this purpose]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: He needs to move it. Rebbi Yose said, both of them are for leniency. If he drew them (on the spot) [for this purpose] even if he did not move it; if he moved it even if he did not draw them (on the spot) [for this purpose].

Samuel said, this you only are saying lengthwise; but crosswise it is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, both lengthwise and crosswise are qualified. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Why are Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both saying? He told them, because disqualified roofing disqualifies only in four cubits. A baraita disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: A sukkah which only contains his head, most of his body, and his table. If he brought a plank and added from it three hand-breadths. If you would say crosswise, this is impossible since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible not to sleep under it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths; disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated both. “Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths,” as we have stated: “If the roofing is three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” “Disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits,” as we have stated: “If a house partially collapsed and he thatched over it, it is disqualified if from the walls to the thatching it is four cubits.” Therefore less is qualified. May one sleep under that? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv answered: pourable mud completes a miqweh but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the sukkah but one may not sleep under it. Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Cahana, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, why do we not say, because disqualified roofing only disqualifies in four cubits?

[There, we have stated]: “Two human-made and one a tree, or two as trees and one human-made is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday.” Here you are saying it is valid but one may not enter it on the holiday but there you are saying his eruv is a {valid} eruv and it is permitted to move it. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one from the top, the other from the bottom. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he put it on the side of a tree his eruv is a {valid} eruv and it is (prohibited) [permitted] to move it. That learns from this, if there were two pegs protruding and he thatched over them it is valid and one uses it on the holiday. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases it is at the side. How is that? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: This is Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon’s, as Rebbi Eleazar ben Simon says, one is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree.

“It happened that Rebbi Ilai went to Rebbi Eliezer in Lydda. He said to him, are you not one of those who rest on the holiday? Did they not say that it is not praiseworthy for a scholar to abandon his house on the holiday and go somewhere else.” As the following: Rebbi Ze`ira went to a circumcision of Rebbi Ila and did not accept any food. If it was because he never ate anything before the end of musaf prayers, or we do not know whether it was because it is not praiseworthy for a scholar to abandon his house on the holiday [and go somewhere else; this] we do not know.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, you shall sit, and it says there, at the door of the Tent of Meeting they shall sit day and night. Since for the sitting mentioned there He made nights like days, so also for the sitting mentioned here we shall make nights like days. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth for Passover and it is said fifteenth for Tabernacles. Since for fifteenth said for Passover the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional, so also for fifteenth said for Tabernacles the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional. The colleagues asked, since there only that one comes to eat mazzah with an appetite, so also here only they come to eat in the sukkah with appetite? Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Since there only one has to eat mazzah in the volume of an olive, so also here only one has to eat grain [in the sukkah] in the volume of an olive? Rebbi Hoshaia said, the sukkah is obligatory all seven days. Rebbi Berekhiah said, they disagree. Rebbi Abuna said, they do not disagree. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he put his mind to it; what Rebbi Hoshaia said, if he did not put his mind to it.

From where did the House of Hillel merit that practice should be fixed following their words? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, because they quoted the words of the House of Shammai before their own words. Not only that, but if they were convinced by the words of the House of Shammai they changed their opinions. Rebbi Simon bar Zeved objected before Rebbi Ila: Or could we say that the Tanna saw that they were older and quoted them first? But did we not state, “it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran”? We could have said, our elders and your elders. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: Since the House of Shammai dismissed the House of Hillel, this implies that practice follows their words.

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.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael explained, a fruit of the splendor tree, one. Date-palm roped, one. A branch of the rope tree, three. And brook-willows, two. And two lifted ones; one which is not truncated. Rebbi Tarphon says, even if all three are truncated.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: Since Rebbi Ismael adds for the myrtle, should he not add for the other kinds? He answered, you are thinking that Rebbi Ismael thinks that truncated is splendor, and we have stated, “Rebbi Tarphon says, even if all three are truncates.” Nobody says “even” if he does not accept the preceding statement. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Jose: What does Rebbi Tarphon add to the words of Rebbi Ismael? He answered him, Rebbi Ismael does not think that truncated is splendor, but Rebbi Tarphon thinks that truncated is splendor. When Rebbi Yasa came up here he saw them being selective about myrtle branches. He said, why are the Westerners selective about myrtle branches? He had not heard thar Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: And they made known and proclaimed in all cities etc. Myrtle is not the same as rope tree, but myrtle is for the sukkah, and rope tree for the lulav. Rebbi Ze`ira blew it.

“The green like leeks.” Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Leek-colored or like leek-colored? He told him, leek-colored. What is the deepest ירק? Rebbi Eleazar said, like wax and like the flower of the qarmal tree; Symmachos says, like a peacock’s wings. What is the deepest red? That is deep crimson. And here, he says so? Rebbi Phineas said, there is a difference there because it says, deepest green.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If one rises early to go on a trip, he takes a lulav and moves it, or the shofar and blows it. When the time arrives to read the shema`, he reads and prays. It was stated, he was to move three times. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, so one and so one, or so and so one one? There, we have stated: “He has to rub each kind three times.” Rebbi Ze`ira asked, so one and so one, or so and so one?

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If one rises early to go on a trip, he takes a lulav and moves it, or the shofar and blows it. When the time arrives to read the shema`, he reads and prays. It was stated, he was to move three times. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, so one and so one, or so and so one one? There, we have stated: “He has to rub each kind three times.” Rebbi Ze`ira asked, so one and so one, or so and so one?

Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: He told him, (as it comes in the mouth before you) [Rebbi Abba is on top before you.] Rebbi Jonah answered both ways. Rebbi Eliezer did not answer any way. Rav in the name of Rav Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rav: Only if he answered at the start of the Chapters. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, what are the starts of Chapters? Hallelujah, praise, servants of the Eternal, praise the Name of the Eternal. They asked before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: From where that he who heard but did not answer has fulfilled his obligation? He told them, since we are seeing great rabbis standing among the public when these say praised be he who comes and the others say in the name of the Eternal, and both have fulfilled their obligation.

Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: He told him, (as it comes in the mouth before you) [Rebbi Abba is on top before you.] Rebbi Jonah answered both ways. Rebbi Eliezer did not answer any way. Rav in the name of Rav Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rav: Only if he answered at the start of the Chapters. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, what are the starts of Chapters? Hallelujah, praise, servants of the Eternal, praise the Name of the Eternal. They asked before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: From where that he who heard but did not answer has fulfilled his obligation? He told them, since we are seeing great rabbis standing among the public when these say praised be he who comes and the others say in the name of the Eternal, and both have fulfilled their obligation.

HALAKHAH: “Lulav and willow six and seven,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said, the willow is a word of the Torah: and brook willows, two. One willow for the lulav, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: willow and pouring water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institution of the prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai, as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty word, if it is empty it is from you. Why? Because you do not exert yourselves. Because it is your life; when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourselves. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on the fast day, and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also the moving.

Bar Qappara said, they are eleven cubits high. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “their heads bent on the altar.” Rebbi Ze`ira sent asking Rebbi Daniel ben Rav Qatina, did you hear from your father that it needs a benediction, is taken alone, and has a minimum? Rebbi Ayvi bar Nagari came in the name of Rav Huna and said with reason that it needs a benediction and is taken alone. Whether it has a minimum I did not hear. There, they are saying Rav Sheshet and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob. One says, three leafed branches. But the other said, even one branch.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the (last) [first] festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the (first) [last] day of the festival? Only split. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be jouyouson your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, hallel and joy eight? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the (last) [first] festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the (first) [last] day of the festival? Only split. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be jouyouson your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, hallel and joy eight? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the (last) [first] festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the (first) [last] day of the festival? Only split. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be jouyouson your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, hallel and joy eight? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the (last) [first] festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the (first) [last] day of the festival? Only split. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be jouyouson your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, hallel and joy eight? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar says, also one who pours a libation of water on Tabernacles outside of the Temple is liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. There are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday; there are Tannaim who state in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday. He who said, it is necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following Rebbi Aqiba; he who said, it is not necessary that the filling be for the holiday, Rebbi Eleazar following the rabbis. This you cannot say since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the entire system of Rebbi Eleazar is the system of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, the water libation is a word from the Torah, so Rebbi Eleazar is saying, the water libation is a word from the Torah. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Ze`ira said, only if he poured three log inside and three log outside. There are Tannaim who state, there is prescribed measure; there are Tannaim who state, there is no prescribed measure. He who said that there is prescribed measure, not liable; he who said there is no prescribed measure, liable.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: No less than seven and no more than sixteen. This Tanna considers blowing straight, modulated, and straight as one unit; the other Tanna considers each single one of them as a unit. You find to say, three for each tribe; Rebbi Jehudah says, three for each standard. But it was stated, and nine at the tenth step. That is another one. He who has “three on top of the altar” does not have “at the tenth step;” he who has “at the tenth step” does not have “three on top of the altar”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that they only blew the trumpet at the water libation. If you are saying, for the drawings, one should state, three for drawing water today, and three for drawing water for tomorrow. Are these it? Are there not others, nine for musaf on the Sabbath, nine for the musaf on a New Moon, and nine for the musaf of the New Year’s day holiday? But it must follow him who said, they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Even following him who said they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices, they were adding modulated sounds, they were not adding straight tones.

They asked before Rebbi Ila, so far for a commandment. From where a prohibition? The verse says, you shall come there and bring there. Where do we hold? If for a commandment, it already had been said. But if it cannot refer to a commandment, refer it to a prohibition. *Does one transgress about a Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time? It was found stated, about Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time one transgresses. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that you should not say that since if it was lost and found after the owner was exculpated, its body is brought as well-being offering, therefore it was a question whether one transgresses about a Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time. They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does one transgress between one holiday and the next? Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated, a holiday offering which was not brought on the first shall be brought on the second; does one permit him to transgress? In addition from the following: You shall do, a positive commandment. Guard, a prohibition. Does he not transgress a positive commandment and a prohibition only after three holidays? Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: If one said, I take upon me the obligation to bring an elevation offering on Monday. Once Monday has passed and he did not bring it, he transgresses. If its year is complete you cast down the last day and he transgresses every single day. If it is so, if three holidays have passed you cast down the last holiday and he transgresses every single holiday. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if its year was completed on Pentecost, is it possible to say it is not qualified and he transgresses?

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written, do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals. There, we have stated: “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written, on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement? And did we not state, Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat.

How for saplings? It was stated: “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits of this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” What is the reason? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And in year [the fourth]. How do you understand this? Rebbi Ze`ira said, three years they shall be uncircumcised, and in year. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is understandable if he planted it 30 days before the New Year. But if it was not planted 30 days before the New Year? Come and see: Is not a full year being counted for him, and you say so? He said to him: If it is so, even if he planted 30 days before the New Year, should it not be forbidden until 30 days before the New Year? What about it? Rebbi Mana said, since it stands in the middle of its year, it has to finish its year.

How for saplings? It was stated: “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits of this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” What is the reason? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And in year [the fourth]. How do you understand this? Rebbi Ze`ira said, three years they shall be uncircumcised, and in year. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is understandable if he planted it 30 days before the New Year. But if it was not planted 30 days before the New Year? Come and see: Is not a full year being counted for him, and you say so? He said to him: If it is so, even if he planted 30 days before the New Year, should it not be forbidden until 30 days before the New Year? What about it? Rebbi Mana said, since it stands in the middle of its year, it has to finish its year.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia. [One said,] already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone. But the other one says, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said, already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone, it follows that Rebbi Ze`ira said, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. “It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked an etrog and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel.” Why about a citron and not about any tree? It was stated “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But do Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not refer to the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Shevaṭ` of the second year, and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia. [One said,] already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone. But the other one says, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said, already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone, it follows that Rebbi Ze`ira said, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. “It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked an etrog and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel.” Why about a citron and not about any tree? It was stated “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But do Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not refer to the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Shevaṭ` of the second year, and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

Could one witness be believed as two? How is this? If there were two, one whom everybody knows and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner teem up with one from the street to testify about him? Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: he and another cannot team up about the signature of the second witness. This is needed in case there were two, one whose signature everybody knows and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner be like anybody from the street to testify about him? In that case the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, this is correct. For example, two who came from a town most of whose inhabitants are Gentiles, like Hippos. One of whom everybody knows that he is Jewish and one whom nobody knows, except that his partner knows him. May his partner be like one from the street to testify about him? If you are saying yes, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Also here the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness.

And what spoiling was there? These were kindling this day and those were kindling the next day; they were thinking that the Court was reconsidering and were spoiled. Who disestablished the beacons? Rebbi disestablished the beacons, and permitted the murderer, and permitted hearsay, and permitted that one was departing in the evening trusting that it would be sanctified. Rebbi Abbahu said, even though you are saying that the beacons were disestablished, they were not disestablished from the Sea of Galilee. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu, should those who see Safed light a beacon? He said to him, Rebbi disestablished the beacons. Why would Safed light a beacon? To communicate that they know. One does not light a beacon in the night of its regular time, but in the night of its extension. In the night of its regular time one cannot kindle because of the holiday, but one kindles in the night of its extension. One kindles only for months settled on time because of a holiday which might fall on a Friday. In the night of its regular time one cannot kindle because of the holiday, in the night of its extension one cannot kindle because of the honor of the Sabbath. For if you are saying, one kindles both for months settled on time [and for months not settled on time]; if you are saying this, they will say that maybe the Court was reconsidering and would be spoiled.

They preferred an old man to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish for intercalation but had to remove him by the other door. He said, this be their reward. He did not hear what Rebbi Crispus said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened that the year was intercalated by three cow hands. One said, in Adar, early and late grain sprout together. Another one said, if in Adar the East wind blows, open your jaws and go towards it. Another one said, in Adar the ox will die naked and try to strip off his hide under the fig tree. And we see that this year nothing of these applies. They intercalated the year on their word. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, because the Court agreed with them. Did not Rebbi Ze`ira say, but they all have to agree to the same reason? But since they all agree with one another it was that they all agreed as to the reason.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was seen to prolong it; one does entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One entangles one who was not seen to sanctify it, one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ze`ira: “If the Court and all of Israel saw it, the witnesses were interrogated but they did not manage to say “sanctified” before nightfall, it is sanctified.” Because of nightfall. Therefore not if there was no nightfall. This implies that one does not entangle one who was seen to prolong it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if two days were needed, one adds two days. The verse says, it. There is authorization only for one day.” This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that just as one intercalates a year according to necessity so one would sanctify the month according to necessity. The verse says, the new moon, one follows the new moon.” This implies that one does not entangle one which was not seen to sanctify it. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “I could think that if the moon was not seen for two days, they should sanctify the next month for two days. The verse says, they, there are, those would not be My festive seasons”. Because it was not seen; therefore not if it had been seen. This implies that one does not entangle one who was not seen to sanctify it. They wanted to say that they do not disagree. What Rebbi Ze`ira said, about all other months; what Rebbi Abba said, about Nisan and Tishre.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

If the Court saw the killer; even if they said, if we saw him we would not recognize him, they would not break the neck, for it is written, our eyes did not see in any way, and they did see. And if the court saw the killer, some Tannaïm state: two of them become witnesses and testify before the rest of them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all are witnesses and have to go and testify before another place. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one who heard part of a straight sound from one who was practicing did [not] fulfill his obligation. And where is this said? “If he blew straight for the first set and continued a double length for the second he has only one in his hand.” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Not even one is in his hand. Why? The beginning combines with the end and the end combines with the beginning. The first part has no end and the second part has no beginning.

They were blowing before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi on a fast day. Rebbi Yose asked, should they not blow before him with trumpets? He had not heard what was stated, trumpets in the Temple, no trumpets in the countryside. Should they not pray 24 before him? As the following, Rebbi Joḥanan on the Ninth of Av was praying 24 but ordered his students, do not learn this action from me; because it was a problem for him whether it was mourning or a public fast day. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is not a public fast day. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is mourning, it is not a public fast day. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the case of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that a person prays four [times] of the Ninth of Av. He only said four, but not 24.

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

HALAKHAH: “A shofar which was split and glued together is disqualified.” For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Nathan. “If one glued together pieces of shofarot it is disqualified.” This also is Rebbi Nathan’s. “If it was pierced and he plugged it,” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Nathan’s, as it was stated, if it was pierced and then repaired, whether with its own kind or another kind, if it obstructs blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified; Rebbi Nathan says, with its own kind it is qualified, not with its own kind it is disqualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: so is the Mishnah: “if it was obstructing blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified.” Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Only if he plugged it. But if he did not plug it it is qualified since all sounds of a shofar are qualified.

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday of the New Year,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Pappos said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were sitting and questioning. They said, we have stated: “if the holiday of the New Year falls on a Sabbath, at the Temple they were blowing but not in the countryside.” If it is a word of the Torah, in the countryside it also should push aside; if it is not a word of the Torah also in the Temple it should not push aside. Cahana passed by. They said, this is a [an important] man whom we may ask. They went and asked him. He said to them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Rebbi Ze`ira told the colleagues to go and listen to Rebbi Levi preaching since it would be impossible that he would let a weekly reading go by without enlightenment. He came and said before them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Then also in the Temple it should not push aside. It was stated, on the first of the month. Then also anywhere they know that it is the first of the month it should push aside. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, and you shall sacrifice, at the place where the sacrifices are offered. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah. Is it not written, you shall convey a sounding shofar in the seventh month, etc? He said to them, this one you convey in all your Land, therefore not another one. They said to him, or we might say, this one you convey in your Land, therefore another one both in your Land and outside the Land. Rebbi Jonah said, if it were written “convey a shofar in your Land”, I would have said that here he restricted and at another place he extended. But in all your Land, here he extended and at another place he restricted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, because of what had happened. Once there was a rumor in the city that Saracens had come and took them, and the Levites spoiled the song. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said before Rebbi Ze`ira that the colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, in whose name does the rabbi say this? He said to them, that is like you who have many teachers! In the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi did he say it. But Rebbi La brought the reason for the practice, as it was stated: They were saying the song of Thursday, shout with joy for our mighty God. But on New Year’s Day they were saying, I removed his shoulder from hardship. If the holiday fell on Thursday, in the morning they did say, shout with joy for our mighty God. In the afternoon they did say, I removed his shoulder from hardship; if they came after the afternoon prayers, they would say, shout with joy for our mighty God. Would they not say the song twice?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ze`ira, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: one is obligated to say, the Holy Power. Rebbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Rav Ḥuna: the Holy Power Who forgives much. Rabbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: In prayer he says, David’s God and Builder of Jerusalem. For Prophets he says, David’s God Who causes help to blossom. On the holiday of New Year’s Day which falls on a Sabbath, there are Tannaim who state, he starts with the holiday and closes with the Sabbath. [There are Tannaim who state, he starts with the Sabbath and closes with the holiday.] Rebbi says, he starts with the Sabbath and closes with the Sabbath with the holiday in between. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi.

“Powers” are counted as verses of kingdom, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they do not count. “Powers” and “kingdoms” are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Jehudah says, they do not. Sing to God, sing; sing to our King, sing, are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they are not. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, do they disagree about it and the sequel, or do they disagree about this text itself? Since it was stated, everybody agrees about God is King over nations that it is one, this implies that they disagree about it and the sequel. Lift, o gates, your heads, and be raised, eternal doors; etc., Lift, o gates, your heads, and rise, eternal doors, etc. The first is counted as one and the second as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose said, the first as two and the second as three.

Should one not say the same for Hallel? Not all people are there. Then should one not say the same for blowing, not all people are there? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written, day, day they will seek, that is shofar blowing and willow twigs. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Alexander heard it from the following: Eternal, listen to sincerity, this is the reading of the shema`. Take note of my song, this is the song of Torah. Listen to my prayer, this is prayer. Disregard swindling lips, this is musaf. What is written afterwards? From before You may my judgment come. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said before Rebbi Ze`ira, there is a difference, since the obligation of the day is in musaf. Rebbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, the verse says so: A day of shofar blowing, and you shall make. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Qaṣarta: For all sacrifices it is written and you shall offer, but here is written, you shall make. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to them, since you came before Me in judgment on New Year’s day and left in peace, I consider it as if you were newly created.