items

HALAKHAH: “Heave and heave of the tithe”, etc. For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Simeon. Even though Rebbi Simeon says that two different names do not combine, he agrees that all items called “heave” do combine.

MISHNAH: These are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon, when they came to visit him. They voted and the House of Shammai had the majority over the House of Hillel; eighteen items they decided on that day.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: בִּירית is any single one, כְּבָלִים any ones connected by a chain. (Rebbi) Jehudah says, בִּירית is a step-chain, as Rav Jehudah said, we are offering a sacrifice to the Eternal, everybody what he found of gold items, אֶצְעָדָ֣ה וְצָמִ֔יד טַבַּעַ֭ת עָגִ֣יל וְכוּמָ֑ז, to atone for our persons before the Eternal. אֶצְעָדָ֣ה is an anklet, צָמִ֔יד are bracelets, as you are saying, and the bracelets on her arms. טַבַּעַ֭ת rings. עָגִ֣יל earrings, as you are saying, earrings on your ears. וְכוּמָ֑ז some are saying this is the form of a womb, but some are saying the form of breasts.

This implies that one item which was mentioned separately by necessity does not divide. If it was mentioned not by necessity it divides. If two items were mentioned separately, do they divide? Let us hear from the following: From where that he transgresses a prohibition whoever brings to the altar meat of a purification offering, or meat of a reparation offering, or meat of most holy offerings, or meat from simply holy offerings, or the remainder of the ˋOmer or the Two Breads, or the Shew Bread, or remainders of cereal offerings, or leaven, or date honey? The verse says, for any leaven or any date honey you may not turn into smoke as a fire gift to the Eternal. Therefore anything that had been given to the fire is under “do not turn into smoke”.

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar, this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says, on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says, as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship. (He retorted,) them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not) separate. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case.

“Who dyes it.” What kind of dying was in the Tabernacle? They were clobbering an animal for red skins of rams. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he is liable who causes a wound which results in echymosis. He who colors his lips red is liable. He who causes bleeding, because of taking away life force at that place. He who makes a shape, the first one is liable because of writing and the second one because of dying. If he left out a limb and another came and finished it, he is liable because of hitting with a hammer. Wringing and washing are the same category of work. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the dyers in Jerusalem made wringing a separate category of work. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, there are 40 categories of work. Should we state this? We come to state only items to which everybody agrees.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the roof as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they do not compare. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed stakes are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine or squash.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shadow it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav Oshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

MISHNAH: The following items about the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath: Its slaughter, and the pouring of its blood, and emptying its intestines, and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and washing of its intestines do not push aside. Carrying it, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain, or cutting its wart, do not push aside; Rebbi Eliezer says, they push aside.

HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time, and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices, they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way, but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly, following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified, following the words of Rebbi Joshua. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for any public sacrifices.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. What is Ben Azzai’s reason? For Temple property cannot be redeemed by work, only by coins.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the roof as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they are not comparable. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed poles are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing it is disqualified.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shade it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man”, to include the uncircumcised. Or “every man” to include the mourner? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes, I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category. The mourner comes from second tithe.

HALAKHAH: “They came and told her, your son died,” etc. If she should not have married but entered levirate, this is the case of a sister-in-law who married without ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this man performs ḥalīṣah, the other one keeps her. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She must leave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: She must leave. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Phineas, how does the rabbi hold? He said, with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him, change your mind, for otherwise I shall publicly call you a rebellious Elder. Rebbi Zevidah said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “She must leave both of them and the thirteen items apply to her, following Rebbi Meïr who said it in the name of his teacher Rebbi Aqibah. But the Sages say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law.” They only said, “there is no bastard from a sister-in-law,” therefore she must leave. And we have stated, “she must leave”. And Rebbi Joḥanan said, she must leave.

HALAKHAH: “Who built a house”, not only who built; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”. From where he who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility, from where? The verse says, “who builds”. I could think that one who builds a portico, a covered walkway, and a verandah would return; the verse says “house”; the house is distinguished by the fact that it can be used as a dwelling. This excludes those items which cannot be dwellings. It also excludes a house which does not enclose four by four cubits. As it was stated: A house which does not enclose four by four cubits is free from the obligation of a parapet, or a mezuzah, or an erub. It also does not induce ṭevel for tithes and one does not give it four cubits in front of its door, and it is not counted as a connection to the town, and one who forswears any use of a house is permitted to sit in it, and it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee year, and it cannot become impure by disease, and its owner does not become exempt from the war because of it.

“ ‘Prohibition’, is an oath. ‘Expression’, is an oath. If you say prohibition is an oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath. If you say prohibition is a kind of oath, he is guilty for this separately and that separately.” “Prohibition is an oath”, and you say “if you say so”? Rebbi Eleazar said, these are two Tannaїm. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is from one Tanna. If he said it in the language of a vow you catch him in the language of a vow. If he said it in the language of an oath you catch him in the language of an oath. If you say, prohibition is a kind of oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath. Rebbi Yose said, this comes only for five loaves. But for a single loaf, from the moment he mentioned “oath” for it, he made it a cadaver. Furthermore, he may want to have oaths apply to prohibited items, but oaths cannot apply to prohibitited items. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it applies even to a single loaf. As we have stated, “in that the past is more stringent than the future, if he said I did not eat, I did not eat, he is guilty for every statement; I shall not eat, I shall not eat, he is guilty only once.” Rebbi Yudan said, only if he first mentioned “vow” and then mentioned “oath”. But if he mentioned oath and then vow, vows can apply to prohibitions but oaths cannot apply to prohibitions.

“ ‘Prohibition’, is an oath. ‘Expression’, is an oath. If you say prohibition is an oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath. If you say prohibition is a kind of oath, he is guilty for this separately and that separately.” “Prohibition is an oath”, and you say “if you say so”? Rebbi Eleazar said, these are two Tannaїm. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is from one Tanna. If he said it in the language of a vow you catch him in the language of a vow. If he said it in the language of an oath you catch him in the language of an oath. If you say, prohibition is a kind of oath, he is guilty for every single prohibition and for every single oath. Rebbi Yose said, this comes only for five loaves. But for a single loaf, from the moment he mentioned “oath” for it, he made it a cadaver. Furthermore, he may want to have oaths apply to prohibited items, but oaths cannot apply to prohibitited items. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it applies even to a single loaf. As we have stated, “in that the past is more stringent than the future, if he said I did not eat, I did not eat, he is guilty for every statement; I shall not eat, I shall not eat, he is guilty only once.” Rebbi Yudan said, only if he first mentioned “vow” and then mentioned “oath”. But if he mentioned oath and then vow, vows can apply to prohibitions but oaths cannot apply to prohibitions.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody married his sister-in-law,” etc. If she should not have married but entered levirate, this is the case of a sister-in-law who married without ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this man performs ḥalīṣah, the other one keeps her. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She must leave. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Phineas, how does the rabbi hold? He said, with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him, change your mind, for otherwise I shall publicly call you a rebellious Elder. Rebbi Zevidah said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “She must leave both of them and the thirteen items apply to her, following Rebbi Meïr who said it in the name of Rebbi Aqibah. But the Sages say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law.” Therefore she must leave.

MISHNAH: If a man performs preliminary marriage using ‘orlah, or kilaim of a vineyard, or an ox sentenced to be stoned, or a calf whose neck was broken, or the birds of a sufferer from skin disease, the hair of a nazir, or the first-born of a she-ass, or meat cooked in milk, or profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct, [the woman] is not preliminarily married. If he sells any of these items and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, she is preliminarily married.

“If he sells any of these items and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, he is married.” Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Because it is not its proceeds. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that one cannot marry preliminary with [the proceeds of] robbery.

“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs. Explain it if he left them real estate. But might it not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items.

“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs. Explain it if he left them real estate. But might it not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items.

MISHNAH: If one recognizes his own vessels or books in the hand of another, if the theft was a known fact in town, [the other] shall swear to him how much he paid and take this amount. Otherwise he cannot be believed, for I am saying that he had sold the items to a third party and the other had bought them from there.