jehudah

HALAKHAH: “The Sages gave a simile about a woman’s anatomy,” etc. So is the Mishnah: The blood from the room is impure but the blood from the upper floor is pure. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The room is inwards from the anteroom; the upper floor is over the room up to the middle of the anteroom, the door of the upper floor opens to the anteroom. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac asked Rav Huna: Does the Mishnah [deal with the case that blood was found] inwards of the door of the upper floor? He said to him, if it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, three are like a doubt but they treated them as certain, viz., the following: A woman who has a miscarriage in the form of a cut-off hand or cut-off foot, or a placenta, and blood found in the anteroom. What are we speaking of? If it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we must deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaios asked before Rebbi Yose: We have stated many doubts and you say so? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan spoke only of a woman.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

If she saw on the bedsheet, is she trustworthy if she says, it looked like such and such? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if she saw on the bedsheet, she is trustworthy if she says, it looked like such and such. It was stated so: She is trustworthy. I could think that in the same way she shows the looks of her stain so she shows the looks of skin disease, the verse says: “He shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his descendants, the priests.”

MISHNAH: If a woman has a miscarriage in the form of a lump; if this was accompanied by blood she is impure, otherwise she is pure. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case she is impure.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman has a miscarriage in the form of a lump,” etc. The Sages say, the uterus grows the lump. Rebbi Jehudah says, blood congealed and was formed into a lump.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah declared impure only in the color of the four kinds of blood. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nehorai: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar heard that and said, I do not accept this. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he did not say that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah but he saw that the rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai: One tears it open. If one finds blood collected there, she is impure, otherwise she is pure. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, disagreeing with Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: “Blood would be her flow from her genitals,” not what is in the amnion nor in a lump.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah declared impure only in the color of the four kinds of blood. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nehorai: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar heard that and said, I do not accept this. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he did not say that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah but he saw that the rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai: One tears it open. If one finds blood collected there, she is impure, otherwise she is pure. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, disagreeing with Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: “Blood would be her flow from her genitals,” not what is in the amnion nor in a lump.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah declared impure only in the color of the four kinds of blood. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nehorai: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar heard that and said, I do not accept this. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he did not say that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah but he saw that the rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai: One tears it open. If one finds blood collected there, she is impure, otherwise she is pure. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, disagreeing with Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: “Blood would be her flow from her genitals,” not what is in the amnion nor in a lump.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah declared impure only in the color of the four kinds of blood. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nehorai: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar heard that and said, I do not accept this. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he did not say that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah but he saw that the rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai: One tears it open. If one finds blood collected there, she is impure, otherwise she is pure. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, disagreeing with Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: “Blood would be her flow from her genitals,” not what is in the amnion nor in a lump.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah declared impure only in the color of the four kinds of blood. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nehorai: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar heard that and said, I do not accept this. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he did not say that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah but he saw that the rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai: One tears it open. If one finds blood collected there, she is impure, otherwise she is pure. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, disagreeing with Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: “Blood would be her flow from her genitals,” not what is in the amnion nor in a lump.

There, we have stated: How long does it have to be soaked? In lukewarm water, 24 hours.” “Jehudah ben Neqosa says, if has to be lukewarm for 24 hours”. How does one proceed? One puts it into hot ashes or adds any amount of hot water.

Rav Jehudah asked Samuel: Since I am learned, can I judge the signs of an amnion? He said to him, your head’s head can be scalded by boiling water, you should not be scalded even by lukewarm water. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, we do not rely on women who say, its completion would have been male, its completion would have been female. Rebbi Jacon bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A woman is trustworthy if she said, I gave birth or I did not give birth. But she is not trustworthy if she says, it was male or it was female.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: There only is a sole because it was weighed down by a living [fetus]; it comes out not with a living but with a dead [child]. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: did we not state, “if a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta, she should observe for male and female birth”? That means, it is a child! Rebbi Huna said, I explained it before Rebbi Jeremiah. Explain it if the child was born through the wall of the womb and the sole from the womb. The child within fulfilling, the sole after fulfilling. The child before she converted, the sole after she converted. But even you may say, both were born from the womb, both were born after she converted. Explain that the child was born first and she designated a sacrifice for it. Before she could bring the sacrifice, the sole came out and the first sacrifice was pushed away. It turns out that she brings the sacrifice for the sole.

“What is the sole which they mentioned? Anything which looks like the sole, a sea fish. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, anything which looks like an ox tongue. Our teachers voted about this to say, only if it exhibits human traits.” Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil, and a sole. About a sole, as we just said. About oil, as we have stated: “Rebbi and his court permitted oil.” About bills of divorce, as we have stated there: “This is your bill of divorce if I die, this is your bill of divorce if [I die from this] sickness, this is your bill of divorce after my death; he did not say anything.” But our teachers said, this is a bill of divorce. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. Rebbi Yannai shouted, you purified the women giving birth! Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran; as from Rebbi Ze‘ira: If this is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran then it was Rebbi Ḥanina who shouted, you purified the women giving birth!

“What is the sole which they mentioned? Anything which looks like the sole, a sea fish. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, anything which looks like an ox tongue. Our teachers voted about this to say, only if it exhibits human traits.” Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil, and a sole. About a sole, as we just said. About oil, as we have stated: “Rebbi and his court permitted oil.” About bills of divorce, as we have stated there: “This is your bill of divorce if I die, this is your bill of divorce if [I die from this] sickness, this is your bill of divorce after my death; he did not say anything.” But our teachers said, this is a bill of divorce. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. Rebbi Yannai shouted, you purified the women giving birth! Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran; as from Rebbi Ze‘ira: If this is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran then it was Rebbi Ḥanina who shouted, you purified the women giving birth!

“What is the sole which they mentioned? Anything which looks like the sole, a sea fish. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, anything which looks like an ox tongue. Our teachers voted about this to say, only if it exhibits human traits.” Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil, and a sole. About a sole, as we just said. About oil, as we have stated: “Rebbi and his court permitted oil.” About bills of divorce, as we have stated there: “This is your bill of divorce if I die, this is your bill of divorce if [I die from this] sickness, this is your bill of divorce after my death; he did not say anything.” But our teachers said, this is a bill of divorce. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. Rebbi Yannai shouted, you purified the women giving birth! Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran; as from Rebbi Ze‘ira: If this is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran then it was Rebbi Ḥanina who shouted, you purified the women giving birth!

Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: If a placenta came out partially today and partially tomorrow? He told him, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood she counts from the second day. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this refers to the case that there was no child born with it. But if a child was born with it, then both for pure and for impure blood she counts only from the moment the child was born.

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul asked before Rebbi: Can one refer a placenta to something which is not a child? He said to him, one does not refer a placenta to anything which is not a child. If it came out attached to it, what then? He said to him, one does not discuss anything impossible. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One does not refer a placenta to something which is not a child, if [nevertheless] it came out attached to something else, one refers to it. Samuel asked the students of Rav: Can one refer a placenta to stillbirths? They said to him, one refers a placenta to a child and one [does not] refer(s) a placenta to stillbirths. Samuel praised them because they follow the argument [of their teacher]. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One refers a placenta to a child but one does not refer a placenta to stillbirths since it does not separate until it [was completed]. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: What you say, that one refers a placenta to a child, is because a pregnant woman does not become pregnant. Why does one not refer it to stillbirth, can a woman not have a stillbirth followed by a stillbirth? I say that she was pregnant with twins when the placenta of one amnion was crushed by the amnion of the other placenta. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One refers a placenta to a child for up to three days, and no child remains after another child for three days. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he who said this also said the other, but they disagree with one another! Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah explained it following Rav: You say that one refers a placenta to a child for up to three days if the child was born first, and you say that no child remains after another child for three days if the sole appeared first. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? The active ones come out first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if [the womb] opened for the large, it opened for the small; if it opened for the small it did not open for the large.

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul asked before Rebbi: Can one refer a placenta to something which is not a child? He said to him, one does not refer a placenta to anything which is not a child. If it came out attached to it, what then? He said to him, one does not discuss anything impossible. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One does not refer a placenta to something which is not a child, if [nevertheless] it came out attached to something else, one refers to it. Samuel asked the students of Rav: Can one refer a placenta to stillbirths? They said to him, one refers a placenta to a child and one [does not] refer(s) a placenta to stillbirths. Samuel praised them because they follow the argument [of their teacher]. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One refers a placenta to a child but one does not refer a placenta to stillbirths since it does not separate until it [was completed]. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: What you say, that one refers a placenta to a child, is because a pregnant woman does not become pregnant. Why does one not refer it to stillbirth, can a woman not have a stillbirth followed by a stillbirth? I say that she was pregnant with twins when the placenta of one amnion was crushed by the amnion of the other placenta. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One refers a placenta to a child for up to three days, and no child remains after another child for three days. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he who said this also said the other, but they disagree with one another! Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah explained it following Rav: You say that one refers a placenta to a child for up to three days if the child was born first, and you say that no child remains after another child for three days if the sole appeared first. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? The active ones come out first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if [the womb] opened for the large, it opened for the small; if it opened for the small it did not open for the large.

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

R. Jochanan ben Dahăbai says in the name of R. Jehudah, A man blind in one eye is exempt from appearing, for it is said, "he shall be seen," "he shall see." As he comes to see, so he comes to be seen. As he comes to see with both his eyes, so he comes to be seen with both His eyes.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

R. Simeon ben Jochai says, One does not say, Investigate a camel, investigate a pig, but investigate a lamb. And what kind of person is this? This is the pupil of a wise man, who has separated himself from the Law. R. Jehudah ben Lakish said, Every pupil of a wise man, who has separated himself from the Law, to him does the passage refer, which says, "As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place" (Prov. xxvii. 8), and that which says, "What unrighteousness have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?" (Jer. ii. 5) There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with his unmarried sister, the other with another man's wife. And, if you like, I will say that both of them have to do with another man's wife, and yet there is no difficulty. The one is

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

Halachoth concerning Sabbath. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning it. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with the words of R. Abba, for R. Abba said, He who digs a hole on the Sabbath, when it is only needed for the sake of the earth from it, is permitted to do so. According to whom is this teaching? According to R. Simeon, who said, A work which is not necessary for its own sake is permitted. If thou sayest, According to R. Jehudah, his teaching is that there are two cases to be distinguished, and that in the one the man does something which effects good, in the other harm. What is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? It refers to the fact that

Things unclean. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary in order to determine that a creeping thing should be the size of a lentil; for this is not determined in Holy Writ. For there is a Baraitha, "In them" (Lev. xi. 26, 43). One might have thought it meant among them all, but that the teaching says, "of them" (Lev. xi. 32, 33). One might have thought it meant from a portion of them, but that the teaching says, "among them." But how is this? It is to include the case of a man's touching the extremity of it, for this is equivalent to the whole of it. Wise men calculated that a lentil should be the minimum for comparison. For a snail at first is about the size of a lentil. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, As the tail of a lizard.

Now seeing that this is deduced from the words, "from the one end of heaven unto the other," to what purpose are there given me the words, "since the day that God created man upon the earth" (Deut. iv. 32)? They are to agree with the words of R. El'azar; for R. El'azar said, The first man extended from the earth to the firmament, for it is said, "from the day that God created man upon the earth" (ibid.), and inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him, and made him small, as it is said, "Thou hast fashioned me after and before, and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). R. Jehudah said that Rab said, The first man extended from one end of the world to the other, for it is said, "since the day that God created man upon the earth," and from one end of heaven unto the other (Deut. iv. 32). Inasmuch as he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and made him small, as it is said, "and laid thine hand upon me" (Ps. cxxxix. 5). If so, the passages are difficult to reconcile. No, for both are of the same dimensions.

And R. Jehudah said that Rab said, Ten things were created on the first day, and they are these; heaven and earth, chaos and desolation, light and darkness, wind and waters, the measure of the day and the measure of the night: heaven and earth; for it is written, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;" (Gen. i. 1) chaos and desolation; for it is written, "And the earth was chaos and desolation;" (Gen. i. 2) light and darkness; darkness, for it is written, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep," (ibid.) light, for it is written, "And God said, Let there be light;" (Gen. i. 3) wind and water; for it is written, "and the wind of God was brooding upon the face of the waters;" (Gen. i. 2) the measure of the day and the measure of the night; for it is written, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. i. 5). There is a Baraitha, Chaos is a green line encompassing all the world, and from it darkness springs, as it is said, "He made darkness his hiding place round about him" (Ps. xviii. 12; E.V. 11). Desolation—this means the stones covered with mud, which are sunk in the deep, from which waters come forth, as it is said, "and he shall stretch upon it the line of chaos and the stones of desolation" (Is. xxxiv. 11). And was light created on the first day? But there is against this view the passage, "and God set them in the firmament of the heaven" (Gen. i. 17), and the passage, "and there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day" (Gen. i. 19). But it is as R. El'azar says; for R. El'azar said, The light which the Holy One created on the first day, Adam saw by its means from one end of the world to the other. When the Holy One considered the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion, and saw that their works were vain, He stood up and took it from them, as it is said, "and from the wicked their light is withholden" (Job xxxviii. 15). And for whom did He take it away? For the righteous of the time to come, as it is said, "And God saw the light, that it was good" (Gen. i. 4), and there is nothing good but a righteous man, as it is said, "Say ye of a righteous man, that he is good" (Is. iii. 10). When He saw that He had taken away the light for the righteous, He rejoiced, as it is said, "He rejoiceth at the light of the righteous" (Prov. xiii. 9). And this is in accordance with the Baraitha which says, The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, Adam observed and saw by its means from one end of the world to the other. These are the words of R. Jacob. But wise men say, These are the luminaries, which were created on the first day, but were not hung up until the fourth day.

And R. Jehudah said that Rab said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, it went spreading on like two clews of woof and warp, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and brought it to a standstill, as it is said, "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his rebuke" (Job xxvi. 11). And this is what Resh Lakish also said, What is the meaning of the words "I am God Almighty" (שדי) (Gen. xvii. 1; xxxv. 11)? It means I am He Who (ש) said to the world, Enough (די). Resh Lakish said, At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it went spreading on, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry, for it is said, "He rebuketh the sea and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers" (Nah. i. 4).

R. Jehudah said, There are two firmaments, as it is said, "Behold, unto the Lord thy God belong the heaven and the heaven of heavens" (Deut. x. 14). Resh Lakish said, There are seven, and these be they, Vilon, Rakia', Sh'chakim, Z'bul, Ma'on, Makhon, Araboth. Vilon serves no purpose whatever save this, that it enters in in the morning, and goes forth in the evening, and renews every day the work of Creation, as it is said, "That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Is. xl. 22). Rakia' is that in which are set sun and moon, stars and constellations, as it is said, "and God set them in the firmament (Rakia') of the heaven." Sh'chakim is that in which the millstones stand and grind manna for the righteous, as it is said, "Yet he commanded the clouds (Sh'chakim) above and opened the doors of heaven; and he rained down manna upon them to eat, etc." (Ps. lxxviii. 23, 24) Z'bul is that in which is the heavenly Jerusalem and the Temple, and the altar is built there, and Michael the great prince stands and offers upon it an offering, as it is said, "I have surely built thee an house of habitation (Z'bul), a place for thee to dwell in for ever" (1 Kings viii. 13). And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? Because it is written, "Look down from heaven and behold from the habitation (Z'bul) of thy holiness and thy glory" (Is. lxiii. 15). Ma'on is that in which are companies of ministering angels, who utter His song in the night and are silent in the day for the sake of the glory of Israel, as it is said, "By day the Lord gives His merciful command and by night His song is with me" (Ps. xlii. 8).

And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? As it is said, "Look down from thy holy habitation (Ma'on), from heaven" (Deut. xxvi. 15). Makhon is that in which are the treasures of snow and the treasures of hail, and the high dwelling-place of harmful dews, and the high dwelling-place of round drops, and the chamber of the whirlwind and of the storm, and the retreat of noisome vapour, and their doors are made of fire, as it is said, "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure" (Deut. xxviii. 12). But are not these in the firmament? Nay, they are in the earth, as it is written, "Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps; fire and hail, snow and vapour; storm making the substance of the wind" (Ps. cxlviii. 7, 8). R. Jehudah said that Rab said, David besought the Merciful One for them, and He sent them down to the earth. He said before Him, O Lord of the world, "Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not sojourn with thee" (Ps. v. 5; E.V. 4) in thy dwelling. Righteous art thou, O Lord; evil shall not sojourn in thy dwelling. And whence do we get it that it is called heaven? Because it is written, "And hear thou in heaven, the habitation (Makhon) of thy dwelling" (1 Kings viii. 39, 43, 49).

R. Jehudah said, Of a truth remember thou that man for good, and Chănaniah son of Hezekiah was his name. But for him the Book of Ezekiel would have been withdrawn, for its words were opposed to the words of the Law. What did they do? They brought up for him three hundred measures of oil, and he sat in an upper chamber and expounded it.

What is the meaning of Chashmal? R. Jehudah said,

Fiery beings who speak. In a Kabbalistic Mishnah we are taught that it means, At times they are silent and at times they speak; at the time that the utterance goeth forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and at the time that the utterance goeth not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. "And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning" (Ezek. i. 14). What is the meaning of "ran and returned?" R. Jehudah said, As the light which goeth forth from the mouth of the furnace. What is the meaning of "as the appearance of a flash of lightning?" R. Jose bar Chănina said, Like the flame that goeth forth from between the potsherds. "And I looked, and, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud, with a fire infolding itself, and a brightness round about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire" (Ezek. i. 4). Whither did it go? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, It went forth to subdue the whole world under the wicked Nebuchadnezzar. And wherefore was all this done? That the peoples of the world might not say, The Holy One, blessed be He, delivered His children into the hand of a mean people. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, What forced me to minister to worshippers of carved images? The iniquities of Israel, they forced me.

Fiery beings who speak. In a Kabbalistic Mishnah we are taught that it means, At times they are silent and at times they speak; at the time that the utterance goeth forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and at the time that the utterance goeth not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. "And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning" (Ezek. i. 14). What is the meaning of "ran and returned?" R. Jehudah said, As the light which goeth forth from the mouth of the furnace. What is the meaning of "as the appearance of a flash of lightning?" R. Jose bar Chănina said, Like the flame that goeth forth from between the potsherds. "And I looked, and, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud, with a fire infolding itself, and a brightness round about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire" (Ezek. i. 4). Whither did it go? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, It went forth to subdue the whole world under the wicked Nebuchadnezzar. And wherefore was all this done? That the peoples of the world might not say, The Holy One, blessed be He, delivered His children into the hand of a mean people. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, What forced me to minister to worshippers of carved images? The iniquities of Israel, they forced me.

When R. Dimi came, he said, Eighteen curses did Isaiah pronounce upon Israel, and he was not satisfied until he had spoken against them this passage, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). Eighteen curses, what are they? As it is written, "For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water; the mighty man and the man of war; the judge and the prophet and the diviner and the elder; the captain of fifty and the man of influence, and the counsellor, and the wise among artificers, and the instructed whisperer. And I will give children to be their princes and suckers out shall rule over them, etc." (Is. iii. 1-4) "Stay"—these are the learned in the Law, "staff"—these are the learned in Mishnah, e.g., R. Jehudah ben Tema and his fellows. R. Papa and our Rabbis differ in respect of this. One says, there are six hundred divisions of Mishnah, and another says there are seven hundred divisions of Mishnah. "The whole stay of bread"—these are the learned in Talmud, as it is said, "Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Prov. ix. 5). "And the whole stay of water"—these are the learned in Agadah, who draw out the heart of man like water by means of Agadah. "The mighty man"—this is the man learned in oral tradition. "And the man of war"—this is he who knows how to handle matters in the battle of the Law. "The judge"—this is a magistrate who gives true decisions faithfully. "The prophet"—this is what the word itself conveys. "The diviner"—this is a king, as it is said, "Divination is in the lips of the king" (Prov. xvi. 10). "The elder"—this is he who is worthy to sit as a teacher presiding over an Academy. "Captain of fifty"—do not read "captain of fifty," but captain of fifths. This is he who knows how to handle matters in the five sections of the Law. There is another explanation of "Captain of fifty" according to R. Abohu; for R. Abohu says, Hence we learn that an interpreter is not appointed over the congregation, who is less than fifty years old. "And the man of influence"—this is he on whose account his generation has influence above in the courts of heaven, e.g., R. Chănina ben Dosa, or below on earth, e.g., R. Abohu in the household of Caesar. "The counsellor"—one who knows how to intercalate years and to fix months. "And the wise"—this is the disciple who makes his teachers wise. "Artificers"—at the time that he is unfolding the words of the Law, all are made like deaf men. "And instructed"—this is he who draws instruction from the heart of a matter. "Whisperer"—this is he to whom it is fitting to impart the words of the Law, which is given in a whisper. "And I will give children to be their princes." What is the meaning of the words, "And I will give children to be their princes"? R. El'azar said, These are the children of men who are empty of good works. "And suckers out shall rule over them." R. Papa bar Jacob said, Foxes, sons of foxes. And he was not satisfied, until he had said to them, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). These are the children of men who are empty of good works. They shall behave themselves proudly against him who is filled with good works as a pomegranate. "And the base against the honourable." Let him come, to whom heavy sins are like light, and behave himself proudly against him to whom light are like heavy.

Is it so? And yet there is a Baraitha to this effect. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, These are the three consecutive expositions. R. Joshua explained things before his master R. Jochanan ben Zakkai; R. Akiba explained things before his master R. Joshua; Chănaniah ben Chăkhinai explained before his master R. Akiba. But behold, R. El'azar ben Arakh was not thought worthy of a place with the three. No, for the principle is, He who teaches and before whom others teach is considered worthy, while he who teaches and before whom others do not teach is not considered worthy. But what do you say then to the case of Chănaniah ben Chăkhinai? For others did not teach before him, and yet he was considered worthy. Yes, for he taught at least in the presence of one who taught others.

Samuel came upon R. Jehudah, who was swinging upon the bolt of a door, and weeping. He said to him, Oh, clever one, why weepest thou? He said to him, Is it a small thing that is written concerning our Rabbis, "Where is he that counted, where is he that weighed, where is he that counted the towers?" (Is. xxxiii. 18) "Where is he that counted?" for they counted all the letters that are in the Books of the Law. "Where is he that weighed?" for they weighed the light and the heavy things which are in the Law. "Where is he that counted the towers?" for they taught three hundred doctrines concerning the tower which flies in the air. And R. Ami said, Three hundred questions were treated by Doeg and Ahithophel concerning the tower which flies in the air. And there is a canonical Mishnah. Three kings and four private persons have no position in the world to come (Sanhedrin, 90a, ii. 22), and we—what will there be for us? He said to him, Oh, clever one, there was uncleanness in their hearts.

R. Jehudah in the name of R. Nachmani the interpreter of Resh Lakish expounded the saying, Every one who gazes upon three things, his eyes grow weak, viz., upon the bow, and the prince, and the priests: upon the bow, for it is written, "As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was ... the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD;" (Ezek. i. 28) upon the prince, for it is written, "And thou shalt put of thine honour upon him" (Numb. xxvii. 20). He that gazeth upon the priests—this has to do with the time that the House of the Sanctuary was in existence, when they stood upon their platform and blessed Israel in the Ineffable Name.

R. Jehudah in the name of R. Nachmani the interpreter of Resh Lakish expounded this question, viz., What is the meaning of that which is written, "Trust ye not in an evil one, put ye not confidence in a guide?" (Mic. vii. 5) It means, if the evil imagination say to thee, Do thou sin and the Lord will forgive, be not persuaded, as it is said, "Thou shalt not trust in an evil one," and "an evil one" is nothing but the evil imagination, as it is said, "for that the imagination of man's heart is evil," (Gen. viii. 21) and there is no "guide" but the Lord, as it is said, "Thou art the guide of my youth" (Jer. iii. 4). Perhaps thou wilt say, Who witnesseth against me? The stones of a man's house and the timbers of his house, these witness against him, as it is said, "For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it" (Hab. ii. 11). And wise men say, The spirit of a man witnesseth against him, as it is said, "Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom" (Mic. vii. 5). What is this that lieth in a man's bosom? One says, This is his spirit; R. Zarika says, The two angels of the ministry which lead him, these witness against him, as it is said, "For he shall give his angels charge of thee, to keep thee in all thy ways" (Ps. xci. 11). And wise men say, A man's limbs testify against him, as it is said, "Therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and I am God" (Is. xliii. 12).

II. (2) Jose ben Joezer says that a man is not to lay on his hand, but Joseph ben Jochanan says that a man is to lay it; Joshua ben P'rachyah says that a man is not to lay it, but Mattai the Arbelite says that a man is to lay it. Jehudah ben Tabbai says that a man is not to lay it, but Simeon ben Shetach says that a man is to lay it. Shemaiah says that a man is to lay it, but Abtalion says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel and Menahem did not differ. Menahem went out. Shammai entered in. Shammai says that a man is not to lay it. Hillel says that a man is to lay it.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

He went out and speculated and found that there is a Baraitha, viz., If a man have dipped and have not credit, he is forbidden tithe, but is free for common food. R. Eliezer said, If he have dipped and gone up, he may hold himself fit for any thing that he desires. But they reply, If, while he had still one foot in the water, he considered himself fit for a smaller thing, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he had gone up, he may not any more consider himself fit. Don't you think that this means, that he may not consider himself fit for any thing at all? No; while he had still one foot in the water, although he considered himself fit for a smaller thing only, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he have gone up, then, if he did not think of himself as fit for any particular thing, he may consider himself as fit, but if he did think of himself as fit for a smaller thing, he may not consider himself as fit for a greater thing. Who is the Mishnah teacher who says, While he had still one foot in the water? R. P'dath says, It is R. Jehudah, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If a collection of water is measured, and there are in it exactly forty seahs, and two men go down and dip one after the other, the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Jehudah said, If the feet of the first are still in contact with the water, the second also is clean (Mikvaoth, vi. 6). R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement on the point among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis, but, if it is a case of passing from uncleanness to cleanness, all agree that the second also is unclean, and this is the opinion of R. P'dath. There are some who say that R. Nachman said, that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement as regards passing from uncleanness to cleanness, but among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis all agree that the second also is clean. And here there is a divergence from R. P'dath. Ola said,

He went out and speculated and found that there is a Baraitha, viz., If a man have dipped and have not credit, he is forbidden tithe, but is free for common food. R. Eliezer said, If he have dipped and gone up, he may hold himself fit for any thing that he desires. But they reply, If, while he had still one foot in the water, he considered himself fit for a smaller thing, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he had gone up, he may not any more consider himself fit. Don't you think that this means, that he may not consider himself fit for any thing at all? No; while he had still one foot in the water, although he considered himself fit for a smaller thing only, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he have gone up, then, if he did not think of himself as fit for any particular thing, he may consider himself as fit, but if he did think of himself as fit for a smaller thing, he may not consider himself as fit for a greater thing. Who is the Mishnah teacher who says, While he had still one foot in the water? R. P'dath says, It is R. Jehudah, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If a collection of water is measured, and there are in it exactly forty seahs, and two men go down and dip one after the other, the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Jehudah said, If the feet of the first are still in contact with the water, the second also is clean (Mikvaoth, vi. 6). R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement on the point among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis, but, if it is a case of passing from uncleanness to cleanness, all agree that the second also is unclean, and this is the opinion of R. P'dath. There are some who say that R. Nachman said, that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement as regards passing from uncleanness to cleanness, but among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis all agree that the second also is clean. And here there is a divergence from R. P'dath. Ola said,

They asked this question of R. Jochanan, According to R. Jehudah how is it as regards dipping needles and forks on the head of the first? Is there the case of draw and go down according to R. Jehudah? and is there not the case of draw and go up according to him? or perhaps there is also the case of draw and go up according to him. He said to him, This is an old story. There are, suppose, three depressions in the bed of a stream, the upper and the lower and the middle one. The upper and the lower are each of the size of twenty seahs, and the middle one of forty seahs, and a collection of stagnant rain-water stretches between them? R. Jehudah said, Meir used to say, A man may dip in the upper one. And yet there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jehudah says,

They asked this question of R. Jochanan, According to R. Jehudah how is it as regards dipping needles and forks on the head of the first? Is there the case of draw and go down according to R. Jehudah? and is there not the case of draw and go up according to him? or perhaps there is also the case of draw and go up according to him. He said to him, This is an old story. There are, suppose, three depressions in the bed of a stream, the upper and the lower and the middle one. The upper and the lower are each of the size of twenty seahs, and the middle one of forty seahs, and a collection of stagnant rain-water stretches between them? R. Jehudah said, Meir used to say, A man may dip in the upper one. And yet there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jehudah says,

They asked this question of R. Jochanan, According to R. Jehudah how is it as regards dipping needles and forks on the head of the first? Is there the case of draw and go down according to R. Jehudah? and is there not the case of draw and go up according to him? or perhaps there is also the case of draw and go up according to him. He said to him, This is an old story. There are, suppose, three depressions in the bed of a stream, the upper and the lower and the middle one. The upper and the lower are each of the size of twenty seahs, and the middle one of forty seahs, and a collection of stagnant rain-water stretches between them? R. Jehudah said, Meir used to say, A man may dip in the upper one. And yet there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jehudah says,

They asked this question of R. Jochanan, According to R. Jehudah how is it as regards dipping needles and forks on the head of the first? Is there the case of draw and go down according to R. Jehudah? and is there not the case of draw and go up according to him? or perhaps there is also the case of draw and go up according to him. He said to him, This is an old story. There are, suppose, three depressions in the bed of a stream, the upper and the lower and the middle one. The upper and the lower are each of the size of twenty seahs, and the middle one of forty seahs, and a collection of stagnant rain-water stretches between them? R. Jehudah said, Meir used to say, A man may dip in the upper one. And yet there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jehudah says,

And the place for laying hold etc. What is the place for laying hold? R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, The part by which he reaches it, and accordingly He says, "And he reached her parched corn" (Ruth ii. 14). R. Asi said that R. Jochanan said, The part of the dish of which fastidious persons lay hold. R. Baybi, who stood before R. Nachman, taught, No vessels have outsides or inside whether for holy things of the sanctuary or holy things of the province. He said to him, Holy things of the province, what are they? the heave-offering? But lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The outsides and inside and the place for laying hold are reckoned as distinct for the heave-offering (Chag. 20b, ii. 1). R. Baybi replied, Perhaps it refers to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

He that takes up that which has been made unclean by pressure may offer the heave-offering but not the hallowed things. Why not the hallowed things? Because of the matter that occurred. For R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, A matter occurred to a certain man, who was carrying a cask of consecrated wine from one place to another,

Nay, but shall I tell you on what authority this depends? This is the teaching of R. Chănaniah ben Akbia; for he said, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan or a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was that? There is a Baraitha, viz., A man shall not take up the waters of sin and the ashes of sin, and carry them away over Jordan or in a ship, and he shall not stand on this side and throw them to the other side, and he shall not make them to swim upon the face of the waters, and he shall not ride upon the back of a beast nor upon the back of his comrade, but if he do, his feet must touch the ground; but he may bear them over a bridge, and he need not regard whether it be Jordan or any other river. R. Chănaniah ben Akbia says, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan and the case when the man is in a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was the matter that occurred? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, A matter occurred with a certain man, who was carrying the waters of sin and the ashes of sin over Jordan and in a ship, and a piece of a dead body as large as an olive was found fixed in the bottom of the ship. In the same hour they said, A man shall not bear waters of sin and ashes of sin and carry them over Jordan in a ship. This question was put by them. In the case of an unclean sandal the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a clean sandal? In the case of an open cask the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a closed cask? What also if it be the case of a man who has passed over and borne it? R. Ela said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is unclean. R. Zera said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is clean.

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

And to shew that there are things which can disqualify without rendering unclean, here is a teaching. For there is a canonical Mishnah, All that disqualifies for a heave-offering, renders the hands unclean, so as to be of secondary impurity. And a hand renders its fellow unclean. These are the words of R. Joshua. And other wise men say, The hands themselves are only of secondary uncleanness, and that which is secondary does not produce a second in the case of ordinary things (Yadaim, iii. 2). Do you think that it cannot make a second? Nay, you say, it makes a third. Or perhaps it makes neither a second nor a third. But moreover we have a Baraitha to quote on our side. For there is a Baraitha, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to render unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rabbi. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, With that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean.

In Judea, yes; but in Galilee, no. What is the reason? Resh Lakish said, Because there is a strip of Cuthites making a separation between them. But, says some one, let us bring it in a box, a chest, or a balloon. Nay, what Mishnic authority is there for so doing? It is the teaching of Rabbi. For he said, A tent projected is not a real tent. And there is a Baraitha, That which enters the land of the Gentiles in a box, a chest, or a balloon, Rabbi declares unclean, but R. Jose bar Jehudah clean. But let one bring it in an earthenware vessel tied round with a line of thread. For R. Eliezer said, They teach in a Baraitha, Hallowed things are not preserved from uncleanness by a line of thread. But against this view of R. Eliezer is another Baraitha, viz., the ashes of the heifer are not preserved by a line of thread. What? are they not? Then hallowed things are preserved. No, says another, but the water destined to receive the ashes, but not yet consecrated, is preserved by a line of thread. And yet Ola said, Learned and observant men purify in Galilee. Yes, but they leave the hallowed things alone, and when Elijah returns, then he will cleanse them.

We have a canonical Mishnah elsewhere, viz., The house of Shammai and the house of Hillel agree, that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried, for those who are keeping the Passover, but we do not investigate for those who desire to eat heave-offering (P'sachim 92b, i. 1). What is the meaning of investigate? R. Jehudah said that Samuel said, A man blows upon the unclean place as he walks along. And R. Chia bar Abba in the name of Ola said, An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean. For those keeping Passover they did not insist upon their decisions, as it was a case of cutting off, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering they did insist on their decisions, as it was a case of death. It was a question for them, In the case of a man who has investigated for his Passover, what about his eating his heave-offering. Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is free to eat his heave-offering, but Rabbah bar Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is forbidden to eat his heave-offering. That old man said to him, Do not thou contradict Ola's assertion, for there is a canonical Mishnah which bears him out, viz., But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed (Chag. 24b, ii. 15). Consequently, seeing that he is believed about hallowed things, he is believed also about heave-offering; and so here too, seeing that he is believed about passover, he is believed also about heave-offering.

III. (7 a) He that opens his cask and he that commences his dough at the time of a festival, R. Jehudah says, he shall finish it, but wise men say, He shall not finish it.

R. Ami and R. Isaac Naphcha sat at the portico of R. Isaac Naphcha. One began and said, What is the meaning of the words, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Every one's hand has been handling it, and dost thou say, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Nay, but hitherto as well has not every one's hand been handling it? He said to him, That is quite true; yet hitherto the uncleanness of a common person in a festival the Merciful One cleanseth. But now it is a case of uncleanness. Shall we say so? For we have one Baraitha which teaches, He shall leave it for another festival, and another Baraitha, He shall not leave it for another festival. Is not this a non-canonical Mishnah? Nay, it is older. Lo, the Baraitha, "He shall leave it," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah, and the Baraitha, "he shall not leave it," with that of our Rabbis. But bring your reasoning powers to bear. Lo, R. Jehudah said, Let him finish; but this, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him not leave," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah; and the other, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him leave," is identical with the teaching of our Rabbis. And why shall he not leave it? Because it is not necessary to leave it.

R. Ami and R. Isaac Naphcha sat at the portico of R. Isaac Naphcha. One began and said, What is the meaning of the words, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Every one's hand has been handling it, and dost thou say, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Nay, but hitherto as well has not every one's hand been handling it? He said to him, That is quite true; yet hitherto the uncleanness of a common person in a festival the Merciful One cleanseth. But now it is a case of uncleanness. Shall we say so? For we have one Baraitha which teaches, He shall leave it for another festival, and another Baraitha, He shall not leave it for another festival. Is not this a non-canonical Mishnah? Nay, it is older. Lo, the Baraitha, "He shall leave it," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah, and the Baraitha, "he shall not leave it," with that of our Rabbis. But bring your reasoning powers to bear. Lo, R. Jehudah said, Let him finish; but this, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him not leave," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah; and the other, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him leave," is identical with the teaching of our Rabbis. And why shall he not leave it? Because it is not necessary to leave it.

R. Ami and R. Isaac Naphcha sat at the portico of R. Isaac Naphcha. One began and said, What is the meaning of the words, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Every one's hand has been handling it, and dost thou say, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Nay, but hitherto as well has not every one's hand been handling it? He said to him, That is quite true; yet hitherto the uncleanness of a common person in a festival the Merciful One cleanseth. But now it is a case of uncleanness. Shall we say so? For we have one Baraitha which teaches, He shall leave it for another festival, and another Baraitha, He shall not leave it for another festival. Is not this a non-canonical Mishnah? Nay, it is older. Lo, the Baraitha, "He shall leave it," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah, and the Baraitha, "he shall not leave it," with that of our Rabbis. But bring your reasoning powers to bear. Lo, R. Jehudah said, Let him finish; but this, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him not leave," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah; and the other, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him leave," is identical with the teaching of our Rabbis. And why shall he not leave it? Because it is not necessary to leave it.

III. (7 b) As soon as the festival is over, they make them pass on to the cleansing of the court. But if the festival is over on the sixth day, they do not make them pass on, on account of the honour of the Sabbath. R. Jehudah says, Also not on the fifth day, for the priests are not at leisure.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.