iyya

May one reduce using utensils? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, one may reduce using utensils. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭevlai: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may not use utensils. There, they said, it is a disagreement between the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. One said, it is forbidden; but one said, it is permitted. He who said that it is forbidden, maybe he would forget and move it. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius instructed to cover it with a heap of sand.

May one reduce using utensils? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, one may reduce using utensils. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭevlai: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may not use utensils. There, they said, it is a disagreement between the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. One said, it is forbidden; but one said, it is permitted. He who said that it is forbidden, maybe he would forget and move it. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius instructed to cover it with a heap of sand.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: It happened that a woman made an eruv for her mother-in-law without her knowledge. The case came before Rebbi Ismael who wanted to forbid. Rebbi Ḥiyya told him, I heard from your father that if you can be lenient in eruvin you should be lenient.

The House of Rebbi Yannai are saying, even a peg to hang his shoes on. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, even a metal plate, even a table. Rav said, but only what may be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba said, it happened that a person had a chicken coop inside another person’s house, where he could enter without asking for permission. The case came before Rav who said, since he is obligated to give them water it is as if it could be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Samuel: The students of Rebbi Joḥanan ascended to Akhbara and relied on the statement of Rebbi Yannai. Ḥizqiah does not say so but: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi ascended to Akhbara and heard from the House of Rebbi Yannai that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

It was stated: Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia says, if a balcony protrudes over the sea, one opens the floor covering, lowers down, and fills. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Only if the hole is four hand-breadths long, and only if it is four hand-breadths wide, and if the walls are ten hand-breadths high. There they are saying, even if the partitions are not ten hand-breadths high it is made like a funnel. Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Ḥiyya: One is permitted to fill but forbidden to pour out. He said to him, when we will ordain Sages, we shall ordain you with them. Rebbi Mana said, he shouted at him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, did he not say to him that one is permitted to fill, since he fills inside his partition, but forbidden to pour out, for he pours outside of his partition?

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia said it only for Lake Genezareth since mountains surround it. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, if one threw from a circular road into public domain or from public domain into it? He said to him, in your opinion a public domain does not exist. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no public domain unless it be open from one end of the world to the other. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted since he said, there is no public domain in this world, only in the future as it is written, every valley will be lifted. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “What is a private domain? The paths of Bet-Gilgul. Private domain regarding the Sabbat but public domain for impurity.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Our Mishnah [refers to] one roof only, but on another roof it is forbidden. If it is not level, but if it is level it is permitted. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Should one not be able to move there up to the place of the partitions? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥiyya: What Samuel said, on this Sabbath itself, what the Mishnah deals with the next Sabbath. Where do we hold? If they made one eruv together, they should be permitted both on this and on the next Sabbath. If they did not make any eruv, they should be forbidden both on this and on the next Sabbath. The case happened as it happened. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: When each of them made separate eruvin, nevertheless the large one is permitted since it is breached along its entire length and the small one is forbidden since it was not breached along its entire length.

Rebbi Ḥiyya said, “the same holds for a wine press,” refers to tithes.

Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose.

Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: He who preliminarily marries with leavened matter starting from the sixth hour did not do anything. Rebbi Huna said, this is correct. Would Cordovanian wheat in the desert be any good on the holiday? A person deposited a double sack of bread with the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he was Joḥanan from Ḥiqoq. He went and asked Rebbi who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination. A person deposited a jar of kutaḥ with Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi. He went and asked Rav who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination. What is the time of elimination? Rebbi Jeremiah said, in the morning. Rebbi Aḥa said, the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Did they not say to touch them in order to sell them only to return a lost article to its owner? In the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah it is not worth anything.

Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: He who preliminarily marries with leavened matter starting from the sixth hour did not do anything. Rebbi Huna said, this is correct. Would Cordovanian wheat in the desert be any good on the holiday? A person deposited a double sack of bread with the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he was Joḥanan from Ḥiqoq. He went and asked Rebbi who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination. A person deposited a jar of kutaḥ with Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi. He went and asked Rav who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination. What is the time of elimination? Rebbi Jeremiah said, in the morning. Rebbi Aḥa said, the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Did they not say to touch them in order to sell them only to return a lost article to its owner? In the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah it is not worth anything.

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words.” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I said, it is correct. There (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux].”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals. He told him, after it was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals. He told him, after it was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “He should bleed it even if he intends to make a blemish.” This parallels another opinion of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain about sancta for which he is liable following Rebbi Simeon.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: You shall not eat it, on the earth you shall you shall spill it like water. I did permit you its blood only for spilling. Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, is not about disqualified sancta written so, you shall not eat it, on the earth you shall spill it like water? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it was said for preparation. Just as the water prepares, so the blood shall prepare.

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized. Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified. But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today, even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated. But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals.

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.

It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see, [but] you may see Heaven’s. There are Tannaim who state, not even Heaven’s. He who said, yours you may not see, you may see Heaven’s, if its dedication precedes its elimination. He who said, not even Heaven’s, if its dedication is after its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain it about sancta for which he is responsible in case of alienation following Rebbi Simeon.

It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see; you may see it in the street; there are Tannaim who state, not even if in the street;. He who says, yours you may not see, you may see it in the street, if his renunciation of ownership precedes its elimination; he who said, not even in the street, if his renunciation of ownership follows its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it for sancta, etc.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover, to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree.

Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot, mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but Second Tithe may not be eaten at any dwelling place! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, [what is its status? As it was stated: “If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you referred to original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place?”] since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

HALAKHAH: “With hazeret”, lettuce. “With ˋulšin”, τρώξιμον. “And with tamka”, γιγγίδιον “With harhabina”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, יסי חלי. “And with maror”. A bitter vegetable turning grey and containing sap. They objected, is not lettuce sweet? Is it not called “lettuce” only if it be sweet? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaya: (Itself it depends only on change) [Itself it is only called “change”]. (As) hazeret is sweet at the beginning and bitter at the end, so did the Egyptians behave towards our forefathers in Egypt. At the start, in the best part of the land settle your father and your brothers, and after that they embittered their lives with hard labor, with mortar and bricks.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? There he says, one is prohibited from cunning but here he says, one is permitted to be cunning. Here it is because “not to be seen nor found”; there, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? There he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but here, he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, there it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but here liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, there it is to protect Jews’ money; here what do you have?

Rebbi Abbahu sent his son Rebbi Ḥanina to acquire merit in Tiberias. They came and said to him, he does works of charity. He sent to tell him, are there no graves in Caesarea that I sent you to Tiberias? For they already voted and decided in the upper floor of the house of Arius in Lydda that study precedes action. The rabbis of Caesaria say, that is, if there is somebody there who will do it. But if nobody is there who will do it, the action has precedence. Example. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, were late in coming to Rebbi Eleazar. He asked them, where have you been? They told him, performing an act of charity. He asked them, where there no others? They answered him, it was a neighbor.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only about a male horse because it kills [its owner] in war. Some say, because it runs after a female, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after a female, [this one] does not run after a female. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a large domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a small domestic animal.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Saul in the name of Rebbi: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached to the Tiberians following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, but some say Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman: A place where one is used to ignite is better than a place where one is used not to ignite. Rebbi Jeremiah said, you should know that this is so since on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both are saying, you should know that this is so since a man is modest and will not engage in sexual activity when a light is burning. Both he who said, one lights, as he who said, one does not light, because of leading into sin. He who said that one lights, because he will see and be ashamed. But he who said that one does not light, that he should not see and become desirous. It was stated: Even in (synagogues) [privies] and wash rooms. For that it is necessary: One ignites even in a place where one is not used to ignite.

On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Rav said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Eleazar said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, why did they say, one may soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Because of danger. Is there a difference between the danger on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath and a Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis objected, a Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath, the shew-breads are distributed in the evening.” There is a difference. Since this is a small matter, he might forget and eat. Rebbi Phineas objected:: A baraita of Rebbi Eleazar disagrees with him. The Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath is a day of rest; on a weekday it is a day of rest. If one is resting on a weekday, not so much more on a Sabbath? Is it not necessary that even things which you are permitted to do on a weekday you have to refrain from on a Sabbath? What would this be? This is soaking pickles and preserves. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. The matter is evident for anything which is served with cold food but for anything which is served with hot food while it is heated he can trim it. Rebbi Mana said, if you are saying so, also he will be embarrassed and will not trim; it will turn out that he will become endangered. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: May one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? He said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa asked Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa, may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? They said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi, may one say to the maker of fried food make me some fried food? He said to him, it is permitted. Make me baked goods? Permitted. Prepare me a wick? No. What is the difference between one and the other? This is food, the other is not food.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible to eat without redemption since Temple property cannot leave without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with Sabbatical money. He said to him, the treasurer exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. But here the vow of abandonment precedes his dedication. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose.

Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed over it and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked. And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten. There is a difference, since every single freestanding vine is a separate planting.

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “nobody could sit in the Temple courtyard except kings of the Davidic dynasty”? And Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even the kings of the Davidic dynasty could not sit in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that he leaned on the wall as if sitting. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal, etc.? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated for prayer.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what 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 Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what 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 Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

“If it touched the pottery of the tannur,” it is a disability of its body and it has to be burned immediately. “If of its fluid fell on clay,” it is a disability on the instrument and needs [losing its] shape. “If of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place.” Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: that is, if it is hot. But if it is cool, it is forbidden. Rebbi Eleazar, the Torah did not say, it should not cook others, but it should not be cooked because of others.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “A disqualification of the body [is piggul and] is immediately burned. [If the owners became impure or died it is] a disqualification of enabler and needs to lose its shape. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “Pesaḥ which left or which became impure is a disqualification of the body and has to be burned immediately. If the owner became impure or died it is a disqualification of the enabler and it shall lose its shape.”

May one start fire on a pyre of leavened matter? For him who infers from leftovers it is prohibited; for him who does not infer from leftovers it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, they came to it following the argument of Rebbi Ismael. (etc.) [Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night.]

The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Issy, one switches and one follows as it was stated. The one who switches does not have these problems.And how much does he have to break? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: until the hand be grated. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Abba both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, until the hand be grated; but the other said, even a finger nail. He who said the hand, so much more the finger nail. He who said the finger nail, but not the hand.Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, one never is liable unless one break a bone on which there is meat in the size of an olive, at one place of meat. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked, then he never should be liable unless he take a stone and smash it into little pieces. A bone, to make him liable for each single bone. This is, with one warning. But with two warnings, then he will be twice liable even for a single bone which he broke repeatedly. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break a bone without meat. He said this only that he cannot be whipped, but as a prohibition, it is prohibited.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount, this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof, this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned, the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives) he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there, this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: Then one who removes should not be liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : One who removes is not liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but it was stated there, an individual who removed the volume of an olive from a group is liable but he did not disqualify himself as a member of the group. This implies, even if he did not eat. If you would say, he ate, why did he not disqualify himself as a member of the group? Rebbi Yose said, when he removed it he disqualified it. Even if he ate, he ate something disqualified. Where was this said? There is breaking after breaking but not removing after removing. Either this means that when he removes it, he disqualifies it, or it means that he is not liable up to the moment when he eats.

An individual can move his part in the entire room, but a group cannot move their part in the entire room. But did we not state “two groups”? He only said two; therefore not one. But did we not state, “the samovar in the middle”? The place of the waiter proves where his group is. But did we not state, “the newly-wed may turn aside her face and eat”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because of shyness

“An orphan for whom guardians slaughtered may eat where he desires.” The Mishnah refers to an underage orphan. But an adult orphan is like one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim; as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose says, the Mishnah says so, “if he slaughtered a kid goat and a lamb, one eats from the first.”

“A person who is half slave and half freedman may not eat of his master’s.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a man who is half slave and half freedman preliminarily married a woman, one disregards his preliminary marriage. It is the same for divorce. Samuel says, one takes notice of his divorce. Samuel’s statement parallels Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated, “One who kidnapped a person half slave and half free Rebbi Jehudah declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One who simultaneously subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this; “if he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, this is Rebbi Nathan’s since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills his obligation by pouring without eating. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Explain it that the master forgot between slaughter and pouring. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one of the rabbis objected; some say that it was himself: Did we not state, “If he forgot what his master had told him, he shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb”?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “For the menstruating woman one slaughters on her eighth day. For a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman one slaughters on his seventh day.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman is pure on his seventh day.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning.Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: the fishermen are in deep sorrow, and mourning all who throw a fishing hook into the Nile? Rebbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? You and your captives. Since you could not be impure before you entered the covenant, also your captives cannot be impure before they enter the covenant. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? You and your captives. Since you need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}, so your captives need sprinkling on the third and seventh {days}. But it is not logically consistent, since Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph, Giddul bar Benjamin said in the name of Rav: The House of Hillel agree that if he transgressed and poured the blood, that it is accepted.

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse, I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said, the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and bar Qappara disagreed. One said, that he could come and eat; the other one said that he could come and pour. And even following him who said, that he could come and eat; on condition that he be within the two thousand cubits of the [Sabbath] domain before nightfall. Rebbi Zeˋira said, there they stated, if he happened to be closer than Modiˋin but his feet were bad, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained, this excludes one who did not refrain. If he happened to be farther than Modiˋin but had a horse at his disposal, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, and he was not on a trip, this excludes this one who was on a trip. If he happened to be closer than Modiˋin before noontime but left before noontime, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained from doing, he who refrains at the time of doing is liable, not at the time of doing is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “On Sabbath Eve starting at the time of afternoon prayers one should not taste anything until nightfall in order to enter the Sabbath with an appetite, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he continues eating until he finishes.” “One interrupts for the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, one does not interrupt.” “It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta were lying on couches in Acco on Sabbath Eve, and in the meantime the Sabbath became holy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta, do you want to interrupt for the Sabbath? He answered him, the entire day you preferred my words over those of Rebbi Jehudah, and now you are preferring the words of Rebbi Jehudah over mine, also to rape the queen in my palace? He said to him, therefore we shall not interrupt, that practice in Israel should not be fixed following R. Jehudah. They did not leave there before they fixed practice following Rebbi Yose.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: These are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages, one spreads a cloth and makes qiddush. May one eat kinds of cookies? May one eat kinds of dried fruit? Rebbi Yudan the Prince bathed and became thirsty. He asked Rebbi Mana, since I am thirsty, may I drink? He told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A person may not taste anything before nightfall.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because it is not agreeable for a person to eat from public assistance, and here even from the tray.

“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.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “The Torah spoke about Four Children, a wise child, a wicked child, a stupid child, and a child who does not know how to ask. What does the wise child say? What are the testimonials, the ordinances, and the laws, that the Eternal, our God, commanded us? Also you shall tell him, with a strong hand did the Eternal lead us out of Egypt, the house of slaves. What does the wicked son say? What does this service mean to you? What is this exertion which you impose on us every (moment) [year]? Since he excluded himself from the community, also you shall tell him, because of this did the Eternal do for me when I left Egypt. For me, He did it, for that man He did not do it. If that man had been in Egypt, he would not have been worthy ever to be redeemed. What does the stupid child say? What is this? Tell him the rules of Passover, that one may not follow the Pesaḥἐπὶ κῶμον. What means ἐπὶ κῶμον? That one not leave one company and join another company. With the child who does not know how to ask, you have to begin and initiate with him.” Rebbi Yose said, that is what the Mishnah says, “if the son does not know how to ask, his father instructs him.”

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why is the death of Aaron’s sons mentioned in the matter when they died during initiation? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Aaron’s sons died on the First of Nisan; why does He mention their death at the Day of Atonement? To teach you that just as the Day of Atonement atones for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Ba bar Binah said, why did the verse append the death of Miriam to the Chapter of the Cow? To teach you that just as the ashes of the Cow atone for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, why did the verse append the death of Aaron to the breaking of the Tablets? To teach you that the death of the Just is as hard for the Holy One, praise to Him, as the breaking of the Tablets.

There, we have stated: “These take away and those put down. And the hand of one is close to the hand of the other, for it is said, before Me always.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s. But according to Rebbi Joḥanan does Rebbi Meïr agree that if they removed the old set in the morning and arranged the new set in the evening this is also “always”. “Rebbi Yose says, also these may remove and those put down; for this also is ‘always’.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose inferred this from the sitting of Aaron and his sons. As you are saying, at the sitting of Aaron and his sons it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day, so here it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yose said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. What does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph say about the sitting of Aaron and his sons?, Since if there, where it is written “always”, you are saying that it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night, here where it is not written “always” not so much more? You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there were seven erections and six dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion here were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. It was stated: “All seven days of initiation did Moses anoint the Tabernacle, erected and dismantled it, and performed in it the services. On the eighth day, he erected it and did not dismantle. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, on the eighth day also he erected, anointed, and dismantled.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that erection in the night is invalid for service during the day. You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were 21 erections and 20 dismantlings.

There, we have stated: “These take away and those put down. And the hand of one is close to the hand of the other, for it is said, before Me always.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s. But according to Rebbi Joḥanan does Rebbi Meïr agree that if they removed the old set in the morning and arranged the new set in the evening this is also “always”. “Rebbi Yose says, also these may remove and those put down; for this also is ‘always’.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose inferred this from the sitting of Aaron and his sons. As you are saying, at the sitting of Aaron and his sons it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day, so here it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yose said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. What does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph say about the sitting of Aaron and his sons?, Since if there, where it is written “always”, you are saying that it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night, here where it is not written “always” not so much more? You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there were seven erections and six dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion here were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. It was stated: “All seven days of initiation did Moses anoint the Tabernacle, erected and dismantled it, and performed in it the services. On the eighth day, he erected it and did not dismantle. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, on the eighth day also he erected, anointed, and dismantled.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that erection in the night is invalid for service during the day. You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were 21 erections and 20 dismantlings.

There, we have stated: “These take away and those put down. And the hand of one is close to the hand of the other, for it is said, before Me always.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s. But according to Rebbi Joḥanan does Rebbi Meïr agree that if they removed the old set in the morning and arranged the new set in the evening this is also “always”. “Rebbi Yose says, also these may remove and those put down; for this also is ‘always’.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose inferred this from the sitting of Aaron and his sons. As you are saying, at the sitting of Aaron and his sons it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day, so here it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yose said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. What does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph say about the sitting of Aaron and his sons?, Since if there, where it is written “always”, you are saying that it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night, here where it is not written “always” not so much more? You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there were seven erections and six dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion here were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. It was stated: “All seven days of initiation did Moses anoint the Tabernacle, erected and dismantled it, and performed in it the services. On the eighth day, he erected it and did not dismantle. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, on the eighth day also he erected, anointed, and dismantled.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that erection in the night is invalid for service during the day. You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were 21 erections and 20 dismantlings.

There, we have stated: “These take away and those put down. And the hand of one is close to the hand of the other, for it is said, before Me always.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s. But according to Rebbi Joḥanan does Rebbi Meïr agree that if they removed the old set in the morning and arranged the new set in the evening this is also “always”. “Rebbi Yose says, also these may remove and those put down; for this also is ‘always’.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose inferred this from the sitting of Aaron and his sons. As you are saying, at the sitting of Aaron and his sons it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day, so here it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yose said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. What does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph say about the sitting of Aaron and his sons?, Since if there, where it is written “always”, you are saying that it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night, here where it is not written “always” not so much more? You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there were seven erections and six dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion here were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. It was stated: “All seven days of initiation did Moses anoint the Tabernacle, erected and dismantled it, and performed in it the services. On the eighth day, he erected it and did not dismantle. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, on the eighth day also he erected, anointed, and dismantled.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that erection in the night is invalid for service during the day. You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were 21 erections and 20 dismantlings.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; with the anointing oil. From where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.”

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; with the anointing oil. From where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.”

If he removed and the wind blew it away, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ḥanina, since Rebbi Ḥanina said, if a fistful was put in the fire when the wind blew it away, by the last blowing the owner was atoned for and the remainders freed from larceny. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the fire engulfed most of it. What means “most of it”? Most of the fistful, or had it been said about most of each separate lump? There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It had been said about most of each separate lump.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next day and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water. Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Joseph said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , after he lifted it he put it back down. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph. “If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands during ancillary services. But to start services it is necessary.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next day and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water. Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Joseph said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , after he lifted it he put it back down. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph. “If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands during ancillary services. But to start services it is necessary.”

[Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the baraita: If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; for ancillary services. But to start service he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands during ancillary services. But to start services it is necessary.]

How, either within four cubits of the ramp or four cubits of the altar? Since we have stated, “It happened that two were equally running up the ramp,” this implies within four cubits of the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explicitly did Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he who is first within four cubits of the altar got the right to do it.”

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Incense which was extinguished becomes defective even in carats; for consumption is written only for the external altar. A wick which was extinguished needs replacement. Immediately? The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, first it needs to be cooled. Does the oil have to be replaced? The word of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac implies that oil has to be replaced. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, now on the winter solstice half a log for each light, on the summer solstice half a log for each light? Rebbi Yose said, from this you cannot conclude anything, as we have stated there, “Ben Bevay for the skeins”, he was threading the wicks.

[Explanation: The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta were walking in the valley of Arbela before morning and saw “the morning hind” that started radiating. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: Great man, so will be the deliverance of Israel; it starts out very small and grows and radiates as it goes on. What is the reason When heshall dwell in darkness, the Eternal is my light. So also at the start Mordocai was sitting at the king’s gate.” After that Mordocai returned to the king’s gate. After that Haman took the garment and the horse. After that: Mordocai left the king’s presence in royal garb. After that: The Jews had light and joy.]

[Explanation: The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta were walking in the valley of Arbela before morning and saw “the morning hind” that started radiating. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: Great man, so will be the deliverance of Israel; it starts out very small and grows and radiates as it goes on. What is the reason When heshall dwell in darkness, the Eternal is my light. So also at the start Mordocai was sitting at the king’s gate.” After that Mordocai returned to the king’s gate. After that Haman took the garment and the horse. After that: Mordocai left the king’s presence in royal garb. After that: The Jews had light and joy.]

It was stated: A person sleeping needs immersion, being drowsy needs sanctification of hands and legs. Does a person sleeping need immersion? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard except for the kings of the Davidic dynasty;” and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even for the kings of the Davidic dynasty there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that somebody was supporting himself on a wall and sleeping. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated in prayer.

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams.

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

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the shew-bread did not become disqualified during travel time. [Rebbi Joḥanan said, the shew-bread became disqualified during travel time.] Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: just as they camped so they travelled, since it did not become disqualified when they were camping so it did not become disqualified when they were travelling. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, shall travel in the midst ofcamps, as if in the center of camps.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based.. It is written, a psalm of Asaph; the power, God, the Eternal, spoke and called the earth, etc., from Zion, the perfection of beauty, God appears. And it says, behold I founded in Zion a stone, etc.”

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

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

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden] altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers.

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

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

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

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

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, the Alexandrians were saying, until when do you attribute the misconduct to us?

“At each hut one tells him, here is food, here is water.” In order to strengthen him. Why? For the evil inclination desires only what is forbidden to him. As the following: Rebbi Mana went to visit Rebbi Haggai who was weak. He told him, I am thirsty; he answered him, drink! He left him and went away. After an hour he visited him and asked him, how is your thirst? He told him, the moment you permitted me it went away. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba told the following case: A man was walking in public with his daughter. His daughter said to him, my father, I am thirsty. He said to her, wait a little bit. She said to him, my father, I am thirsty. He said to her, wait a little bit, and she died. When Rebbi Aḥa finished the musaf prayer he said before them, our brothers, he who has small children should leave because of them.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If of bulls and he-goats to be burned a limb left which completes a majority? His question implies that the matter depends on a majority. The following is obvious: If most of it left and after this a limb left which completes a majority. [This must be: It left limb by limb and after this a limb left which completes a majority..]

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned were taken out and brought back? It is obvious for us that in returning they do not make garments impure. What our problem is, do they make garments impure from the moment they started to be brought out? Rebbi Abba objected, did we not state: “They were carrying them on yokes. If the front carriers left the walls of the Temple courtyard while the back carriers did not yet leave, the front carriers make garments impure while the back carriers do not make garments impure until they also leave. After they left, these and those make garments impure.” Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, there is a difference, for it is written, then he shall take out, until he completely leave the domain from which it is taken out.

The bull, the ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of this Tanna is to join purification sacrifice to purification sacrifice and elevation sacrifice to elevation sacrifice. But some want to say, the bull, the ram, the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering. This Tanna distributes the services. What is the reason? He leaves and brings hiselevation sacrifice and the people’s elevation sacrifice. As mentioned in the matter. What is mentioned in the matter? His ram and the people’s ram. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, what is the reason for the he-goat? Of the blood of the atoning purification sacrifice. The atoning purification sacrifice already preceded.

Why in white clothing? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, like the service up high so is the service down below. As up high, a man in their midst clothed in linen, so down below a holy linen shirt he shall wear.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: And he shall wear them, they shall be worn out there, there they were hidden, there they were rotting, and were not qualified for the next Day of Atonement. [It was stated: Rebbi Dosa says, they were qualified for a common priest.] It was stated: Rebbi said, there are two answers in the matter; one for clothing of the High Priest, and one for clothing of the common priest. It was stated: Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon did not disagree about the belt of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement that it was of byssus, and on all other days of the year that it contained kilaim, about what did they disagree? About the belt of the common priest, where Rebbi says, it contained kilaim, but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, it did not contain kilaim. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi, you shall do to Aaron and his sons so, all that I had commanded you. Since the garments of Aaron contain kilaim, so also the garments of his sons contain kilaim. How does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon explain the verse? Aaron with what is appropriate for him, and his sons with what is appropriate for them.