iyya

A case came before Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. He sent Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa to ask Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He said to him, just as they disagree about the Sabbath so they disagree about impurity, and instructed him following the rabbis. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked himself: One heard saying, practice follows Rebbi Jehuda, and he instructed him following the rabbis?

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.

Rebbi Abbahu said, anything which sits in the hair is called “wig.” The younger Rebbi Yannai had cotton wool in his ear which fell out. He wanted to return it on the Sabbath. His companions rebuked him; was it because of jewelry? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that oil is the healing agent, whereas the Sages were of the opinion that the cotton wool was the healing agent? But did not (Rav) [Rebbi] Jehudah say in the name of Rav Zeˋira, a person with earache puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that practice follows Rebbi Yose whereas his companions were of the opinion that practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? Buy did not Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that they did not consider humans like soil whereas his companions were of the opinion that they made humans like soil? But did not Rebbi Zeˋira say that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi made himself a handle for the cotton wool in his ear? Could they hold that a human is treated like soil? Is this so? But it must be the following: Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he would not forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain and his companions were of the opinion that one would forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

Rebbi Abbahu said, anything which sits in the hair is called “wig.” The younger Rebbi Yannai had cotton wool in his ear which fell out. He wanted to return it on the Sabbath. His companions rebuked him; was it because of jewelry? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that oil is the healing agent, whereas the Sages were of the opinion that the cotton wool was the healing agent? But did not (Rav) [Rebbi] Jehudah say in the name of Rav Zeˋira, a person with earache puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that practice follows Rebbi Yose whereas his companions were of the opinion that practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? Buy did not Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that they did not consider humans like soil whereas his companions were of the opinion that they made humans like soil? But did not Rebbi Zeˋira say that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi made himself a handle for the cotton wool in his ear? Could they hold that a human is treated like soil? Is this so? But it must be the following: Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he would not forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain and his companions were of the opinion that one would forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If a bone was stuck in his throat he puts of the same kind on top of his head and this is not of ways of the Emorite. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: you shall neither divine nor use incantations. Even through there is no divining there are signs, but only after three portents; for example when I came from Padan, Rachel died on me; Joseph is no more, Simeon is no more, and you want to take Benjamin, etc

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together. Of these, to obligate for derivatives. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken; he is liable only once. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them. Like prostration to obligate for partial action. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written, if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, it is written: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all [liable] because of harvesting.” Rebbi Sidor said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rebbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all [liable] because of harvesting.” Rebbi Sidor said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rebbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all [liable] because of harvesting.” Rebbi Sidor said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rebbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

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.

Anywhere one stated categories there are derivatives. There, we have stated: “There are four categories of damages. The ox”, this is the horn. Goring and pushing are main categories. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If it bit, lay down, kicked, these are derivatives of the horn. There, we have stated: “The categories of impurity, the crawling animal and semen.” What are derivatives of crawling animals? Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Naḥum: pushings. What are pushings? Touching. The main category of impurity makes everything impure, derivative impurity transmits impurity only to food and drink, or clay vessels. Food and drink and [clay] vessels cannot become main categories of impurity to transmit impurity. Gonorrhea. And here, we have stated: “The categories of work are 39.” Ploughing is a category. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, these are derivatives of ploughing.

Anywhere one stated categories there are derivatives. There, we have stated: “There are four categories of damages. The ox”, this is the horn. Goring and pushing are main categories. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If it bit, lay down, kicked, these are derivatives of the horn. There, we have stated: “The categories of impurity, the crawling animal and semen.” What are derivatives of crawling animals? Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Naḥum: pushings. What are pushings? Touching. The main category of impurity makes everything impure, derivative impurity transmits impurity only to food and drink, or clay vessels. Food and drink and [clay] vessels cannot become main categories of impurity to transmit impurity. Gonorrhea. And here, we have stated: “The categories of work are 39.” Ploughing is a category. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, these are derivatives of ploughing.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

[Rebbi] Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeˋira only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeˋira say the pruner is like the planter, did he say perhaps the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Zeˋira he is guilty on two counts.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed fish, if for their body he is not liable, but to produce fish sauce he is liable. Rav said, if one compressed pickles, if for their body it is permitted, for their fluid it is forbidden. Preserves both for their body or their fluid is forbidden. Samuel said, both for pickles and for preserves, both for their body or their fluid it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Mana asked him, why? Because one said forbidden and permitted but the other said liable and not liable.

Rebbi Abba (bar) Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi disagreed. One said, one spits and crushes; the other said, one does not spit and crush. Where do they differ? If it is not on a mosaic floor. But if there is a mosaic floor he spits and crushes. If he spat and the wind carried it away he is liable because of winnowing; and for anything which is diminished by the wind one is liable because of winnowing.

Rebbi Abba (bar) Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi disagreed. One said, one spits and crushes; the other said, one does not spit and crush. Where do they differ? If it is not on a mosaic floor. But if there is a mosaic floor he spits and crushes. If he spat and the wind carried it away he is liable because of winnowing; and for anything which is diminished by the wind one is liable because of winnowing.

Rebbi Abba (bar) Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi disagreed. One said, one spits and crushes; the other said, one does not spit and crush. Where do they differ? If it is not on a mosaic floor. But if there is a mosaic floor he spits and crushes. If he spat and the wind carried it away he is liable because of winnowing; and for anything which is diminished by the wind one is liable because of winnowing.

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects (normally) on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another] place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes] at the end.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina ben Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, (in truth) [also] preparations for making food they permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

HALAKHAH: “One who brings out wine to mix a cup,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of cups? 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.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

“Kohl to apply to one eye.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, because a woman would paint one eye with kohl and appear in public. Rebbi Abun said, even the most dissolute whore would not do this. But a woman one of whose eyes hurts paints the other with kohl and appears in public. Rebbi Mana said, did we state that she hurts? But a woman would paint one eye with kohl, cover the other, and appear in public. You captured my heart with one of your eyes. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Because a woman who is blind in one eye paints the other with kohl and appears in public.

“Kohl to apply to one eye.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, because a woman would paint one eye with kohl and appear in public. Rebbi Abun said, even the most dissolute whore would not do this. But a woman one of whose eyes hurts paints the other with kohl and appears in public. Rebbi Mana said, did we state that she hurts? But a woman would paint one eye with kohl, cover the other, and appear in public. You captured my heart with one of your eyes. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Because a woman who is blind in one eye paints the other with kohl and appears in public.

“Wax to close a small hole.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: To close a small crevice.

HALAKHAH: 5. “Reed to make a writing pen,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But at least that it reaches to the finger joints. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understands up to here. Maybe up to here? There, we have stated: “A pen of which the writing tip was broken off is impure because of the eraser. If the eraser was broken off it is impure because of the writing tip.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understand up to here. Maybe up to here? Rebbi Yose said, any “egg” which was stated in Kelim means the actual volume of an egg. In Šabbat in the volume of a dried fig, of an egg.

It was stated: “A smooth stone the size of an olive, or a walnut, or an egg, he may take and cleanse his feet with it. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: up to a full hand.” Rav Jehudah said, Boetius ben Zenon was sitting and repeating before Rebbi; he said, so we are saying, it is necessary that he sit down and take it in his hand. He told him, everything is permitted except what is formed like a small sack. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: it may be like the base of a small mortar of a spice dealer. Rebbi Yose said, they only said, of a spice. But not of spices. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A pebble on which grasses grew he may take and cleanse his feet with it. But if he plucks off from it on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: It is forbidden to cleanse oneself with any potsherd. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only potsherds but even handles of amphoras, and anything which was brought into the fire and came out again. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, a pebble which had been used by another person and water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah one may not use to cleanse himself. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to cleanse himself with water which a dog licked. And it was stated so: One cleans himself neither with a dog’s mouth, nor in presence of a dog, nor with water which the dog had licked off, nor with water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah. And if somebody washes in the bath house or washes in a bathtub, it is bad for hemorrhoids. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Five things were said about a reed blade: One does not use it to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to clean teeth with it, nor does one use it to cut meat on the table, nor does one cleanse himself, because an evil spirit resides on it.

HALAKHAH: 7. “A potsherd (of any size) to put between one half brick,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may use it to sanctify; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Eleazar asked, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why may one not use it to sanctify? Because it is impervious to impurity . But are not vessels made of cow dung, stone vessels, earthen vessels impervious to impurity and one may use them to sanctify! But because it does not contain a quartarius. But does not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree that one may sanctify using an arbitrarily small complete clay vessel? It is that the only reason is that it does not have the appellation “vessel”. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan. It is not enough to disqualify the body but one may use it to sanctify? But this follows Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said, also the most minute amount of clay vessel.” Did not Rebbi Yose say this only for a complete one, and do we not deal here with a broken one? What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated supports Rebbi Joḥanan; what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

HALAKHAH: 2. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah is about a basket full of green melon and squash, where part of the food is inside and part outside. But a basket full of grain, when he took out in the volume of a dried fig he is liable. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s statement disagrees, as Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A crocheted cloth part of which was inside and part outside, if he took from one side and put it down on the other he is not liable. If he lifted it, only if he lifted it entirely at the same time.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if it was broken open. He said to him, but did we not state ‘a basket”; can you say, a basket broken open? What about this? Nothing is moved in the public domain and becomes karmelit except a human. Ḥizqiah said, if he took out a bundle from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was higher than ten [hand-breadths], since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, if he took out a beam from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was in another private domain, since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a stone is in the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is liable. Samuel said, a basket full of produce put into the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is not liable. Do they disagree? Here, if it was turned on its side, there if it was not turned on its side. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if one moved a stone in the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, how do you treat it? As one who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it, or from the public domain to a different public domain? The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If one piles five [hand-breadths] on top of five, how do you treat it? As one who moves from a private domain to karmelit, from karmelit to a private domain, from a private domain to another private domain?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Where do they differ? If he himself took them but if another took them they are disgusting. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rav, he is never liable unless he take them with a grooming knife. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: The one who braids is liable because of building. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Banaya: At our place they call builder one who is plaiting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, would it not be reasonable that it should be because of weaving? The argument of Rebbi Zeˋira is inverted, for there said Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one who plaits three hairs of a human is liable because of weaving; Rebbi Zeˋira said, is it not spinning rather than weaving? And here he says so! There if they are few, here for many. That is what you say about a human, but for an animal it is pure, as it was stated: One who makes a belt under the heart, to beautify, or to fasten the bags, to hang it around an animal’s neck, is pure. That is, for simple ones. But if the are folded, whether for human or for animal they are impure. The one who applies kohl is liable because of writing; the one who puts on make-up is liable because of dyeing.

“The enclosure of a cistern or a rock high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths].” Where do we hold? If ten high (and four wide, it is a domain by itself. Ten high) but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Issi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways; on condition that he not exchange. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high. But did not Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, say, anything which hinders access in the public domain is called karmelit? Rebbi Yudan said, what Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, said refers to the middle, but on the side the public domain invalidates it.

“The enclosure of a cistern or a rock high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths].” Where do we hold? If ten high (and four wide, it is a domain by itself. Ten high) but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Issi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways; on condition that he not exchange. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high. But did not Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, say, anything which hinders access in the public domain is called karmelit? Rebbi Yudan said, what Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, said refers to the middle, but on the side the public domain invalidates it.

HALAKHAH: 3. Our Mishnah applies if there is no hole there, but if there is a hole, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis. In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr, whether it is four by four or it is not four by four one considers the wall as carved out. In the rabbis’ opinion, if it is four by four one considers the wall as carved out, otherwise one does not consider the wall as carved out but as closed. Rav Ḥisda said, if it extends slanting. But will it not finally descend? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, explain it that it was a soft fig cake and it stuck. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the level below? He said to him, there the vegetables profit from the terrace but here people rub it and it falls down. If it would say, if there is a hole [in the wall] and it profits from the hole just as vegetables profit from the terrace, you would be justified.

HALAKHAH: 5. Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, it they are tied together with bast. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only if they made an eruv. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. One said, if the distance between them is less than four; but the other said, even if the distance between them is four. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even if they are not ten [hand-breadths] high, it is he who said, if the distance between them is less than four [hand-breadths].

HALAKHAH: 5. Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, it they are tied together with bast. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only if they made an eruv. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. One said, if the distance between them is less than four; but the other said, even if the distance between them is four. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even if they are not ten [hand-breadths] high, it is he who said, if the distance between them is less than four [hand-breadths].

From a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one transports neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. If it was less than this it is permitted. What is the difference between a rock and a ship? A ship rises and falls; a rock stays in its place. But is it not karmelit? Is it permitted to move on karmelit only four cubits? Rebbi Ila said, it refers to the beginning: “from a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it.” If it was higher it becomes like a fence made for agriculture where inside one is permitted to transport only four cubits. If it was lower one transports from it to the sea and from the sea onto it, and one transports up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, two adjacent karmeliot, may one transport from one to the other? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since the sea surrounds it from all sides it is considered as a single karmelit.

He who hollows out cliffs, cavities, pillars, millstones, or splits mosaic stones, splits blocks, is liable because of chiseling. One who puts together a Galilean bed is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋura said, he only is like one who takes a brick and puts it on bricks on the Sabbath. Rav Hamnuna instructed the Head of the Captivity to disassemble a composite table on the Sabbath. He said, Rav Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya was with him. Rav Jehudah heard it and said, the one who instructed him did not study or serve. Rebbi Shammai said, the one who instructed him instructed following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: Planking of a ship, or of a crib, and the posts of a bed, and the leg of a table, and the handle on the top of a knife one shall not return but if one returned he is not liable. But if one pushed in he is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if they were loose he removes and returns. It was stated: “Stuck together they are a connection for impurity and sprinkling; nailed together they are a connection for impurity but not for sprinkling. Those which may be taken apart and put together again are connections neither for impurity nor for sprinkling.” And here, you are saying so? There normally they are fixed; if not fixed there is no connection. But here sticking together is the end of its manufacture.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya both say, ninety-nine die because of the eye and one by the hand of Heaven. Rebbi Ḥanina and Samuel both say, ninety-nine die because of cold and one by the hand of Heaven. Rav follows his opinion and Rebbi Ḥanina follows his opinion. Since Rav was living there, where the evil eye is prevalent, he did say that ninety-nine die because of the eye and one by the hand of Heaven. Since Rebbi Ḥanina was living in Sepphoris, where it is cold, he did say that ninety-nine die because of cold and one by the hand of Heaven. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Ninety-nine die because of hot wind and one by the hand of Heaven. But the rabbis say, ninety-nine die because of criminal negligence and one by the hand of Heaven.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

HALAKHAH: 3. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, folding by two persons is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On the Sabbath, two together may not fold. If one folds on a footstool it is as if two persons were folding. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for eating and drinking. Since this mouth [is bothersome] (is smelling), they permitted him to be occupied with words of the Torah. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for being occupied with words of the Torah. A baraita supports either one of them: What does one do? Either he sits down and eats or he sits and studies words of the Torah. One verse says, it is a Sabbath for the Eternal, and another verse says, an assembly for the Eternal, your God. How is that? Give part of it to the study of Torah and part to eat and to drink. Rebbi Abbahu said, a Sabbath for the Eternal, rest like the Eternal. Since the Eternal rested from saying, you also should rest from saying.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, with difficulty they permitted greeting on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, when Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai saw that his mother enjoyed talking much, he said to her, mama, today is Sabbath. It was stated: It is forbidden to pray for his needs on the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, may one say, “shepherd us, provide for us”? He answered him, these are formulas of benediction.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, with difficulty they permitted greeting on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, when Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai saw that his mother enjoyed talking much, he said to her, mama, today is Sabbath. It was stated: It is forbidden to pray for his needs on the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, may one say, “shepherd us, provide for us”? He answered him, these are formulas of benediction.

It was stated: One rinses cups, pots, and plates from Friday Night to the morning, from morning to noon, from noon to afternoon. After afternoon it is forbidden, only for cups it is permitted since drinking has no fixed times. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: An intelligent woman rinses a cup here, a pot there, a plate there; the result is that she waters down her house on the Sabbath.

Even though they said, one reads Hagiographa only after the afternoon prayers, nevertheless one studies and preaches about them. If he needs it, he takes and checks. An example: Rebbi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose were sitting and explaining the plain sense of a scroll of Lamentations on a Ninth of Av which fell on a Sabbath (after the afternoon prayers.) They left over one alphabetic poem. They said, we shall come tomorrow and finish it. When Rebbi was on the way home, he hurt his finger and recited about himself, many are the evildoer’s hurts. [The Elder] Rebbi Ḥiyya said to him, it is our fault that this happened to you, as it is written, our spirit, the Eternal’s anointed, was caught by their corruption. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose told him, that could have been said about us if we had not occupied ourselves with it; so much more since we did occupy ourselves with it. He went home, put a dry sponge on it and tied it from the outside with bast. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, from this we learned three things: A sponge does not heal but protects; bast is prepared, and one recites from Hagiographa only after afternoon prayers.

Even though they said, one reads Hagiographa only after the afternoon prayers, nevertheless one studies and preaches about them. If he needs it, he takes and checks. An example: Rebbi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose were sitting and explaining the plain sense of a scroll of Lamentations on a Ninth of Av which fell on a Sabbath (after the afternoon prayers.) They left over one alphabetic poem. They said, we shall come tomorrow and finish it. When Rebbi was on the way home, he hurt his finger and recited about himself, many are the evildoer’s hurts. [The Elder] Rebbi Ḥiyya said to him, it is our fault that this happened to you, as it is written, our spirit, the Eternal’s anointed, was caught by their corruption. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose told him, that could have been said about us if we had not occupied ourselves with it; so much more since we did occupy ourselves with it. He went home, put a dry sponge on it and tied it from the outside with bast. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, from this we learned three things: A sponge does not heal but protects; bast is prepared, and one recites from Hagiographa only after afternoon prayers.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saw a book of agadah. He said, even if what is written in there is good, the hand who wrote it should be amputated. A person told him, it was written by X’s father. He said, I was saying, the hand who wrote it should be amputated. That happened to him, as an error which is coming out from the ruler’s mouth.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this is Rebbi Nehemiah’s who said, it can be taken only if necessary. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of the rabbis there is that everything in the house is prepared, but here if you would say so he would save from today for tomorrow. The Mishnah is from Rebbi הונדקס who said, one always saves food for three meals. Explain it if the fire started Friday evening before he ate. What should one say on the day of Atonement? Should he not save anything following the rabbis? Everybody agrees that one saves food for one meal because of the danger.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rebbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rebbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rebbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rebbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rebbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rebbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

“All implement covers,” etc. Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose.

There, we have stated: “one who brings out wine to mix a cup,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Joshiah, what is the measure of cups? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups of Passover add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.

Rebbi Eleazar said, a person can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “If a vessel was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave [of the tithe] tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that. What is to be done? “From before I shall separate it.” Think about it, if it was pure heave, “from before I shall eat it.” Think about it, if it was impure heave, “from before I shall deposit it in a corner.”

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: He explained this about one who forgot. A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: He explained this about one who forgot. A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rebbi Hoshaia state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?

Samuel said, if he runs a fever [for one hour] one waits with him one month. May one feed him with milk-substitute from heave? May one rub him with heave oil? Let us hear from the following: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The prepuce is counted only from the eighth day onward. It was stated so: For the entire thirty days it is forbidden to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and forbidden to rub him with heave oil. How do you treat the night of the eighth day? Since it was stated: In the night of the eighth day it enters the corral to be tithed, that means that the night of the eighth is treated like the eighth day. And it was stated so: All seven days long one is permitted to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and permitted to rub him with heave oil.

The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. Since there, where he qualifies it as an implement, you say that it is permitted, here, where he does not qualify it as an implement, not so much more? Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Also they permitted preparations for making food. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: Following him who permits, only from above. As the following: In the days of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi there was a festive meal in the House of Study. They spread a canopy the day before over four cubits; the next day they were extending it over everything. They were of the opinion that this followed the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi. They investigated and found that it was not according to Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s opinion unless it was spread over most of it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who sets up tents on the Sabbath is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he only is spreading and folding it on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the rule for a spread over a chest? He told him, since it was spread the day before he is like one who unlocks and locks on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters yeast is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Jonah both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina Beroqa said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, they also permitted preparations for making food. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

HALAKHAH: “Straw on a bed.” Our Mishnah: if he did not sleep on it yesterday; but if he slept on it yesterday it is like its body. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, the earlier generations were asking, may he stir it by his fingertips? Rebbi Yannai said, the balding is bald, the deprived is deprived, pour cold water on the shivering, the house fell on the dweller in it. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, this is the rule for the poor man.

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.

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.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does [not] follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. (We asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.) We asked about it, we would think this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him? Samuel said, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, for example what we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”? He told him, did I not say Eruvin but partitions? Cahana shares Samuel’s opinion. Therefore it was necessary to say that practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah.

They only said “higher than twenty”. Therefor at the end of twenty it is qualified. This follows Rav who said that the end of measurements is for leniency; Rebbi Joḥanan said that the end of measurements is for restriction. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For an alley whose beam is higher than twenty he puts another beam within twenty and this reduces to less than twenty. Rebbi Yose said, on condition that the entire qualification beam be within twenty. Rebbi Ḥilqiah said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even this comes following Rav, as Rav said that slaughter half by half is qualified, and why did they say that it is disqualified? Because of the visual impression. For if you say that he has to put it within twenty, he would put it higher than twenty.

“If it is wider than ten cubits it should be reduced.” How does one reduce? He puts a cross-beam on the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. This was said for width; the rabbis also apply it to height. Is it not as if opened in its length? It is turned into a porch. Rebbi permitted a porch in Bet Shearim. How many pillars did it have? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yose, one said, six, but the other one said, eight. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, they do not disagree. He who said six does not count the two outer ones, he who said eight does count the two outer ones. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Six is not important, eight is not important. But if it was used by the public even with two it will be forbidden, if it is not used by the public even with many it will be permitted. The case which happened was as it happened.

An alley which was broken at its side towards the entrance, the rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yose. If four [hand-breadths] wide was standing it needs a beam, otherwise it does not need one. What is the difference between this and an alley which has two openings? If an alley has two openings, does he not put a beam over one of them and permits? Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, if an alley has two openings, is it not usual that people enter by one and leave by the other? But is it usual that people enter by one and leave by the breach?

Rebbi Zeˋira said, by what can a courtyard become permitted? It was found stated, with one plank, the words of Rebbi, but the Sages say, with two planks. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, practice follows him who said, by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows him who said, by two planks, but I am saying, by one plank. On condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side? But there are only planks of three hand-breadths on each side, and what he said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, a plank of any thickness on each side.

“If there is a door-frame even though it is wider than ten cubits there is no need to reduce.” Ḥananiah bar Shelemia was sitting stating this to Ḥiyya, Rav’s son. Rav put out his head from the window and said, it is not so. He told him, but was it not stated so? He said to him, if you state this to him you have to inform him that it is not so.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door. Rebbi Jeremiah said this before Rebbi Zeˋira, who told him, what do you have in your hand? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis here follow their opinion and the rabbis there follow their opinion. Since the rabbis there are saying, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them; they are those who say, it is not so. But the rabbis here who are saying, a hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door, they are those who say, it is so.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, 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 Zeˋira, 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 Zeˋira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted, 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”. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not inverted. Rebbi Jeremiah said, for he is of Rav Jehudah’s opinion, as Rav Jehudah said, that is if it is open to a domain of difficult access. But if it was open to the public domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, how does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam at each side but the Sages say a lath and a beam on one side and he shall make a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? Here about ten [cubits], there about thirteen. The words of the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rav Hoshaia asked my father, how large can the breach of an alley be in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah? And he told him, thirteen [cubits]. And here he says so? The Rabbis of Caesarea say, there what is standing is more than what is breached but here what is breached is more than what is standing.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted, 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”. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not inverted. Rebbi Jeremiah said, for he is of Rav Jehudah’s opinion, as Rav Jehudah said, that is if it is open to a domain of difficult access. But if it was open to the public domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, how does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam at each side but the Sages say a lath and a beam on one side and he shall make a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? Here about ten [cubits], there about thirteen. The words of the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rav Hoshaia asked my father, how large can the breach of an alley be in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah? And he told him, thirteen [cubits]. And here he says so? The Rabbis of Caesarea say, there what is standing is more than what is breached but here what is breached is more than what is standing.

“And also I heard from him that if one of the dwellers in a courtyard had forgotten to make an eruv he is forbidden [to bring into] his house.” There it follows the rabbis, here Rebbi Eliezer. The rabbis say, a person may annul his right to his house but not his right to his courtyard. Rebbi Eliezer says, just as a person may annul his right to his house so he may annul his right to his courtyard. According to Rebbi Eliezer, could he not be treated like a guest and be permitted? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer fined him. Rebbi Shammai asked, according to Rebbi Eliezer, does one fine anybody in error about a matter of their words? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai asked, if somebody said, I am annulling the right to my house, would the rabbis agree? If somebody said, I am annulling the right to my courtyard, would Rebbi Eliezer agree?

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste (anything) [food] on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: And tenfemale donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food. Why does the verse say, and food? From here that everything is called food.

If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, if he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv. If he forbade himself a loaf by a vow it may be used as eruv, since another person may eat it. If he dedicated it it may not be used as eruv, since neither he nor another person may eat it. Rebbi Aḥa asked, may not a person ask about his dedication? Rebbi Aḥa said that Rebbi Miasha asked: There Rebbi Simeon said that Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, if one used idolatry to make a lath it permits the alley, and here you are saying so? Rebbi Eleazar said, there in any case the alley was closed; here what do you have?

Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move ṭevel which has a condition on it. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as eruv in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about eruv of courtyards. But for an eruv of domains, a villager who deposits his eruv at Jerusalem can go there and eat it.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: My mother’s sons bore ill-will against me, (etc.) [they made me a guard of the vineyards; my vineyard I did not guard.] What caused me to guard the vineyards? Because my vineyard I did not guard. What caused me to keep two days in Syria? Because I did not keep one day in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. What caused me to separate two ḥallot in Syria? Because I did not separate one ḥallah in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. Rebbi Joḥanan read for them, but I Gave them prescriptions which are not Good[and laws by which they cannot live]. Rebbi Abbahu went to Alexandria and made them carry lulavim on the Sabbath. Rebbi Immi heard it and said, who (feeds them) [brings them] Rebbi Abbahu every year? Rebbi Yose sent and wrote to them: even though we wrote you the order of holidays, do not change the usage of your departed ancestors.

If he acquired a place of Sabbath rest when Gentiles came and surrounded him with a barrier. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the barrier is of no use for him but he may walk 2’000 [cubits] and carry within four. Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, he walks and carries within 2’000. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abuna in the name of Ḥiyya the son of Rav: He walks within 2’000 and carries within 4’000 cubits by throwing. They wanted to say, their disagreement is following Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba; but following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they do not disagree. Even following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they disagree; one who had acquired a place of Sabbath rest is in better shape than one who had not acquired a place of Sabbath rest.

If he acquired a place of Sabbath rest when Gentiles came and surrounded him with a barrier. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the barrier is of no use for him but he may walk 2’000 [cubits] and carry within four. Ḥiyya the son of Rav said, he walks and carries within 2’000. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abuna in the name of Ḥiyya the son of Rav: He walks within 2’000 and carries within 4’000 cubits by throwing. They wanted to say, their disagreement is following Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba; but following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they do not disagree. Even following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah they disagree; one who had acquired a place of Sabbath rest is in better shape than one who had not acquired a place of Sabbath rest.

If they deposited him at the door of the sheep-pen. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba one gives him two cubits inside and two cubits outside. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah one does not allow two cubits inside and two cubits outside, for if you would say that one allows him two cubits inside and two cubits outside then he could carry in the entire sheep-pen. If they deposited him in the middle of the sheep-pen and the sheep-pen was partially inside the Sabbath domain and partially outside the Sabbath domain. Rebbi Aḥa said it from study, Rebbi Jehudah said it from reflection: This is the disagreement of Rav Ḥuna and of Ḥiyya the son of Rav.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Since Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba wanted to be strict with themselves, this implies that practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: also for a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral, practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, the entire day they were arguing one with the other until my father’s brother came, decided between then, and instituted that practice follow Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah for a ship and Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba for a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral. What is the difference between a sheep corral and a ship? The colleagues say, for a ship because its walls are part of itself; Rebbi Zeˋira said, because one removes it from these four cubits and puts it into those four cubits. What difference results between them? If it was a covered walkway, according to the colleagues it is permitted, according to Rebbi Zeˋira it is forbidden. If the sea was calm, according to the colleagues it is forbidden, according to Rebbi Zeˋira it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the Mishnah says that the four cubits which they mentioned are not a domain.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: one adds a limb to it. He lifted his eyes and looked at him. He told him, why are you looking at me? Do I need you that you enjoy it? Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. It is written and Moses would take the Tent, etc. How far away was it? One mil. It is not written “and it was that anybody asking Moses” but and it was that anybody asking the Eternal. From here that anybody visiting his teacher is as if he was visiting the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav: It is written, Eliahu from Tisbe said, etc. Was not Eliahu the ruler of the prophets? But it teaches that all the time he was standing before his teacher Aḥiyya from Shilo it was as if he stood before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of those of the House of Shilo: Even when Eliahu wanted water for his face Elisha would put it on his hands. What is the reason? Here is Elisha ben Shafaṭ, it is not written here “who studied Torah”, but who poured water on Eliahu’s hands. It is written: The lad Samuel was serving the Eternal before Eli. Did he not only serve Eli? But this teaches that all service which he rendered before his teacher Eli was as if he rendered if before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ismael stated: And Aaron and all the Elders of Israel came to eat bread with Moses’s father-in-law before god. Did they eat before God? But from here that anyone who receives a friend is as if he received the Divine Presence.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: one adds a limb to it. He lifted his eyes and looked at him. He told him, why are you looking at me? Do I need you that you enjoy it? Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. It is written and Moses would take the Tent, etc. How far away was it? One mil. It is not written “and it was that anybody asking Moses” but and it was that anybody asking the Eternal. From here that anybody visiting his teacher is as if he was visiting the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav: It is written, Eliahu from Tisbe said, etc. Was not Eliahu the ruler of the prophets? But it teaches that all the time he was standing before his teacher Aḥiyya from Shilo it was as if he stood before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of those of the House of Shilo: Even when Eliahu wanted water for his face Elisha would put it on his hands. What is the reason? Here is Elisha ben Shafaṭ, it is not written here “who studied Torah”, but who poured water on Eliahu’s hands. It is written: The lad Samuel was serving the Eternal before Eli. Did he not only serve Eli? But this teaches that all service which he rendered before his teacher Eli was as if he rendered if before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ismael stated: And Aaron and all the Elders of Israel came to eat bread with Moses’s father-in-law before god. Did they eat before God? But from here that anyone who receives a friend is as if he received the Divine Presence.

Rebbi Aḥa said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Bar Qappara disagree. One said, this you are saying only about a large city. But for a small town the addition should not be more than the core. But the other said, whether large or small, 2’000 is sufficient.

Rav said, in a town built of tents, everybody measures from his tent. If there were three huts and three barns one measures from the outer one. Issy objected, is it not written, a sign you should have outside the camp? How could they relieve themselves outside? Rebbi Ḥiyya the son of Rebbi Sabbatai asked, how could they go to Moses’s house of study? Moses built them three huts and three barns. Rebbi Yose says, because they were travelling and camping by the Word, was it not temporary? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he would bring them into the Land, it is as if it were permanent. Because of this Rebbi Abbin said, Moses built them three huts and three barns.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph: “A village which is the property of one person and becomes owned by many,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One does not make an eruv in parts. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument is inverted since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? It was not said about this but about the following: Even a big city like Antioch, if it has a single gate one may make an eruv. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One does not make an eruv in parts. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if people in an alley put a beam (in) [at the entrance] of the alley then these are permitted and those are prohibited. If both of them put it up, both are prohibited. What does he do? He puts the beam at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. If five alleys opened into one alley and they put their beam in the middle of the alley then these are permitted and those are prohibited. If both of them put it up, both are prohibited. What does he do? He puts the beam at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. Rebbi Phineas immigrated here. He looked at the entrance of the market of the shearers and said to them, did you split your eruv? Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom told him, it was made to reinforce the houses.

“Unless one leaves outside like the town Ḥadašah in Jehudah.” As Senan, Ḥadašah, and Migdal-Gad. “Which has 5 inhabitants,” even men, women, and children. Assi said, but only Israel. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Simeon bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav: If they open into it. Rebbi Mana said, since they open into it they all are made one domain.

A town which was destroyed. Rebbi Eleazar says, he walks its entirety and outside 2’000 cubits. Samuel says, he only has 2’000 cubits [from] the place of his eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rab: If somebody deposits his eruv in a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral he walks its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits. Are a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral not as if houses and apartments were destroyed?

It was stated: “If two people were partners in a courtyard and one of them died, and the house fell as inheritance to an outside person. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: This is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since he dies there is no greater cession of rights than this. “If an outside person owned a house in the courtyard with them when he died and the house fell as inheritance to a dweller in the courtyard. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Still this is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. May one cede rights after dark? Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi went up to Ḥammat Gader. They asked Rebbi Ḥama bar Joseph and he permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan heard them and said, you did the correct thing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, you acted incorrectly. Do they disagree? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you moved. Rebbi Abba said, they disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased and moved. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you leased and that you moved.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: They stated this in commercial practice. Everybody with wine, since he does not care about mixing, it does not need an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other, since he cares about mixing, it needs an eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah refers to the case that all is in one vessel. Rebbi Zeriqan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that they are used to drink οἰνόγαρον. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus says, in every case they are forbidden until they make an eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Ze`ira: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Meïr. Which [statement of] Rebbi Meïr? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Meïr who said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr who said that one may not make an eruv for a person without his knowledge. In the opinion of Rebbi Mana, following Rebbi Ze`ira, in the opinion of Rav following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Brothers sharing property who were eating at their father’s table,” etc. Where is the main dwelling? Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Samuel disagreed. One said, at the place of their bread, but the other said, at the place of sleeping. We did not know who said what but since Samuel said, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is rabbinically forbidden, he must say, at the place of their bread. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel, “Brothers who were eating”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah is if they are sustained by their father. In any case, are they not partners in what they are eating? Rebbi Abba said, Rebbi Samuel explained to me that their father gives them property rights only for what they are eating. Then even if the eruv does not come to them? They treated it as a house where they deposited the eruv. Samuel said, he and his sons and the people of his house make an eruv with one loaf. Does he disagree? There he says, at the place of their bread, and here he says so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it. This is similar to what Rebbi Aḥawa bar Rebbi Ze`ira said, one may make an eruv with half a loaf. But we have stated: “Even if it was baked from a se’ah and was sliced one may not use it for eruv”, and you are saying so? He explains it if two persons were partners in it.

It is obvious that an eruv needs a house. Should a participation need a house? (Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley.) The word of Rav implies that an eruv needs a house. The word of Samuel implies that participation needs a house. A baraita of Samuel disagrees with him: Participation may be put into the porter’s lodge. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may put it either in the airspace of a courtyard or the airspace of the alley.