jehudah

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s. As it was stated “Water, a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine, a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” Mixed by how much? Let us hear from the following: “Water. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” This implies even many cups. What is the measure of cups? Rebbi Abun said, τέταρτον is a quarter.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s. As it was stated “Water, a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine, a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” Mixed by how much? Let us hear from the following: “Water. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” This implies even many cups. What is the measure of cups? Rebbi Abun said, τέταρτον is a quarter.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Jehudah’s. As it was stated “Water, a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine, a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” Mixed by how much? Let us hear from the following: “Water. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup. Wine. a gulp; Rebbi Jehudah says, for mixing a cup.” This implies even many cups. What is the measure of cups? Rebbi Abun said, τέταρτον is a quarter.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles. A lady saw that his face was shiny. She said to him, old man, old man, one of three things applies to you. Either you are drunk from wine, or you are lending on interest, or you are raising pigs. He answered her, this woman’s spirit shall be blown away, not one of these three things applies to me, but my learning is ever present with me, as it is written, a man’s wisdom illuminates his face.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he not say, the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged, and diminished, but it was not made small as before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. It was stated, dried like the volume of an olive, the words of Rebbi Nathan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not answer him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Cahana asked him, it is pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqan asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal (in) [is like] its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this.” Nothing else is like this in the amount needed for its impurity. But its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he who says “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant told him, this is correct; Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not answer him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Cahana asked him, it is pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqan asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal (in) [is like] its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this.” Nothing else is like this in the amount needed for its impurity. But its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he who says “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant told him, this is correct; Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.

MISHNAH: One who brings out rope to make a handle for a box, bast to make a hanger of a small or large sieve, Rebbi Jehudah says to make from it an instrument to measure a shoe for a child. Paper to write on it a toll collector’s receipt; and anybody who carries out a toll collector’s receipt is liable. Erased paper to tie over the the opening of a small perfume flask.

“Rebbi Jehudah says to make from it an instrument to measure a shoe for a child.” But only a child who knows how to tie.

“Anybody who carries out a toll collector’s receipt is liable.” It was stated: “If one carries out a toll collector’s receipt, before he showed it to the toll collector he is liable, after he showed it to the toll collector he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the toll collector he is liable since he may show it to another toll collector.” If one carries out a document of indebtedness, before he showed it to the debtor he is liable, after he showed it to the debtor he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the debtor he is liable since he may show it to another debtor.

“Anybody who carries out a toll collector’s receipt is liable.” It was stated: “If one carries out a toll collector’s receipt, before he showed it to the toll collector he is liable, after he showed it to the toll collector he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the toll collector he is liable since he may show it to another toll collector.” If one carries out a document of indebtedness, before he showed it to the debtor he is liable, after he showed it to the debtor he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the debtor he is liable since he may show it to another debtor.

MISHNAH: Glue to put on top of the snare, clay soil to make an opening for a goldsmith’s oven, Rebbi Jehudah says, to make a stand. Bran to put on the opening of a goldsmith’s oven. Lime to apply to a little girl, Rebbi Jehudah says, to treat a temple, Rebbi Nehemiah says, to prepare make-up.

MISHNAH: Glue to put on top of the snare, clay soil to make an opening for a goldsmith’s oven, Rebbi Jehudah says, to make a stand. Bran to put on the opening of a goldsmith’s oven. Lime to apply to a little girl, Rebbi Jehudah says, to treat a temple, Rebbi Nehemiah says, to prepare make-up.

“Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah are reasonable if it is egg-shaped; those of Rebbi Neḥemiah if it is beaten.”

MISHNAH: Bone to fill a spoon; Rebbi Jehudah says to make a tooth of a key. Glass to scrape the head of the weaver’s beam. A pebble to throw at a bird; Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, to throw at an animal.

HALAKHAH: 6. “Bone to fill a spoonful; Rebbi Jehudah says to make a tooth of a key.” What is חָף? A key. There, we have stated: “If the teeth were taken, it is impure because of the holes. If the holes were covered, it is impure because of the teeth.” It seems that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument is inverted. There he calls חָף a protrusion and here he calls it a key.

HALAKHAH: 6. “Bone to fill a spoonful; Rebbi Jehudah says to make a tooth of a key.” What is חָף? A key. There, we have stated: “If the teeth were taken, it is impure because of the holes. If the holes were covered, it is impure because of the teeth.” It seems that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument is inverted. There he calls חָף a protrusion and here he calls it a key.

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

MISHNAH: A potsherd to put between one half-brick and another, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, to carry fire with it. Rebbi Yose says, to fill it with a quartarius. Rebbi Meïr said, even though it is no proof, it is a hint: that in its splinters no shard be found to catch fire from the blaze. Rebbi Yose told him, from there is proof, to draw water from the pit.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

Its sown seeds: the minimum of seeds are two. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarta said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle. Rebbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds. That follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said six, seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, זרעיה has five letters; everywhere I find ו I delete it. This was asked of Rebbi Ḥuna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, זירועיה is written plene. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: [All inside of six. Cahana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish:] All at the outside of six. Then we should state “nine!” Rebbi Tanḥum from Bostra said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds.

Its sown seeds: the minimum of seeds are two. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisarta said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle. Rebbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds. That follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said six, seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, זרעיה has five letters; everywhere I find ו I delete it. This was asked of Rebbi Ḥuna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, זירועיה is written plene. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: [All inside of six. Cahana in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish:] All at the outside of six. Then we should state “nine!” Rebbi Tanḥum from Bostra said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds.

MISHNAH: One who brings out wood to cook an easily cooked egg, spices to spice an easily cooked egg, and these combine one with the other. Shells of walnuts, skins of pomegranates, isatis, and madder to dye a small tissue like a hair net. Soda, and soap, Cimolian earth, and potash, to wash a small tissue like a hair net; Rebbi Jehudah says, to use on a stain.

MISHNAH: Pepper in any amount, ˋiṭran in any amount, spices and metals in any amount. Of the altar’s dust, of the altar’s stones, of rot of scrolls, of rot of their bindings the most minute amount since one collects them to hide them away. Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who takes out the most minute amount of appurtenances of idol worship, as it is said, nothing of the ban shall cling to your hand.

MISHNAH: One who takes out a peddler’s bag, even though it contains many kinds, is liable only for one purification sacrifice. Garden seeds less than the volume of a dried fig; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, five. Green melon seeds two, squash seeds two, Egyptian bean seeds two. A live locust in any amount, dead in the volume of a dried fig. A vineyard bird either live or dead in any amount since one keeps it as medicine. Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount since one keeps it as a toy for children.

MISHNAH: One who takes out a peddler’s bag, even though it contains many kinds, is liable only for one purification sacrifice. Garden seeds less than the volume of a dried fig; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, five. Green melon seeds two, squash seeds two, Egyptian bean seeds two. A live locust in any amount, dead in the volume of a dried fig. A vineyard bird either live or dead in any amount since one keeps it as medicine. Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount since one keeps it as a toy for children.

“Garden seeds less than the volume of a dried fig; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, five.” What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? Because this is what one usually sows in a garden bed.

“Garden seeds less than the volume of a dried fig; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, five.” What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? Because this is what one usually sows in a garden bed.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount.” Therefore pure in the amount of a dried fig whether alive or dead. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says one does not play with pure food. But is there not written, would you play with him as with a bird? Is it not permitted out of a prohibition? But is it not written, as with a bird? Rebbi Mattaniah said, since it is lacking slaughter it is as if impure.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount.” Therefore pure in the amount of a dried fig whether alive or dead. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says one does not play with pure food. But is there not written, would you play with him as with a bird? Is it not permitted out of a prohibition? But is it not written, as with a bird? Rebbi Mattaniah said, since it is lacking slaughter it is as if impure.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount.” Therefore pure in the amount of a dried fig whether alive or dead. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says one does not play with pure food. But is there not written, would you play with him as with a bird? Is it not permitted out of a prohibition? But is it not written, as with a bird? Rebbi Mattaniah said, since it is lacking slaughter it is as if impure.

HALAKHAH: “One who stores as seeds,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, is the Mishnah Rebbi Jehudah’s? For Rebbi Jehudah said, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi came in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this comes only for the sample, because the buyer already was satisfied. But as to seeds and medicines even for the most minute amount he is liable. If one stored it and another took it out, he is not liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar declares him liable. Where do we hold? If he took it out on the second’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is not liable; if he took it out on the first’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is liable. But we must hold when it was not explained. The rabbis say, it is a common presumption that he took it out on the second’s initiative; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says that it is a common presumption that he took it out on the first’s initiative.

HALAKHAH: “One who stores as seeds,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, is the Mishnah Rebbi Jehudah’s? For Rebbi Jehudah said, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi came in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this comes only for the sample, because the buyer already was satisfied. But as to seeds and medicines even for the most minute amount he is liable. If one stored it and another took it out, he is not liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar declares him liable. Where do we hold? If he took it out on the second’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is not liable; if he took it out on the first’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is liable. But we must hold when it was not explained. The rabbis say, it is a common presumption that he took it out on the second’s initiative; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says that it is a common presumption that he took it out on the first’s initiative.

HALAKHAH: “One who stores as seeds,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, is the Mishnah Rebbi Jehudah’s? For Rebbi Jehudah said, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi came in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this comes only for the sample, because the buyer already was satisfied. But as to seeds and medicines even for the most minute amount he is liable. If one stored it and another took it out, he is not liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar declares him liable. Where do we hold? If he took it out on the second’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is not liable; if he took it out on the first’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is liable. But we must hold when it was not explained. The rabbis say, it is a common presumption that he took it out on the second’s initiative; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says that it is a common presumption that he took it out on the first’s initiative.

If you say that he was unimportant, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written: The prince of the princes of the Levites, Eleazar, Aaron’s son. A duke of dukes he was. The great Rebbi Jehudah said, he was the executive officer. “And why was his title Markol? Because he had the say about everything.” Only there is no greatness in the king’s palace. Rebbi Levi said, it is written, the priest shall dress in linen garment … and remove the ashes, only there is no greatness in the king’s palace.

MISHNAH: One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable. In truth a woman who ties to her sinar whether in front or back is liable since it is apt to move. Rebbi Jehudah says, the same holds for messengers.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One who threw four cubits in the public domain is liable. Rebbi Jehudah considers four cubits in the public domain a separate category of work. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion there are 40 categories of work: should we not state this? We come to state only things about which everybody agrees. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah learned this from those who were sewing the gobelins, for those sewing the gobelins were throwing the needles one to another. Is that not karmelit? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they were throwing sideways.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One who threw four cubits in the public domain is liable. Rebbi Jehudah considers four cubits in the public domain a separate category of work. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion there are 40 categories of work: should we not state this? We come to state only things about which everybody agrees. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah learned this from those who were sewing the gobelins, for those sewing the gobelins were throwing the needles one to another. Is that not karmelit? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they were throwing sideways.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One who threw four cubits in the public domain is liable. Rebbi Jehudah considers four cubits in the public domain a separate category of work. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion there are 40 categories of work: should we not state this? We come to state only things about which everybody agrees. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah learned this from those who were sewing the gobelins, for those sewing the gobelins were throwing the needles one to another. Is that not karmelit? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they were throwing sideways.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One who threw four cubits in the public domain is liable. Rebbi Jehudah considers four cubits in the public domain a separate category of work. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion there are 40 categories of work: should we not state this? We come to state only things about which everybody agrees. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah learned this from those who were sewing the gobelins, for those sewing the gobelins were throwing the needles one to another. Is that not karmelit? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they were throwing sideways.

“From a ship in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea into it. Rebbi Jehudah says, if its draught was more than ten hand-breadths but it does not extend higher than ten hand-breadths above the water one moves from it to the sea but not from the sea into it.” Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, why from it to the sea? Because it is not ten high. If it is so, even from the sea into it! Why from the sea into it is forbidden? Because it is ten deep. If it is so, even from it to the sea! Rebbi Abun said, why is it permitted from it to the sea? Because of danger.

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

And it is difficult about Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If one took [tools] to harvest but did not harvest, is that perhaps anything? Rebbi Ada said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: “One who hits or smooths a piece of weaving is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

MISHNAH: One who writes two letters is liable, whether with his right hand, or with his left hand, whether of one denomination or of two denominations, whether two signs of any language. Rebbi Yose said, two letters create liability only as signs since they were making signs on the planks to know which belongs to which. Rebbi Jehudah said, we find a short name from a long name, Sem from Simeon, Noah fron Naḥor, Dan from Daniel, Gad from Gadiel.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable, but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. The principle: In every case where it still needs catching, he is not liable, if it does not need catching he is liable.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

One may make honeywine on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: wine, honey, and pepper. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to mix but forbidden to grind. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Anything for mixing is permitted, for grinding is forbidden. But do we not deal here with mixing? Rebbi Jehudah ben Titus, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is a difference here since it is completion of production. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to break but forbidden to assemble. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: ground garlic. If it needed grinding it is forbidden, but if to mix into fat it is permitted. There, we have stated: “About garlic, unripe grapes, and grain kernels which he squashed when it was still daylight, Rebbi Ismael used to say, he should finish after nightfall, Rebbi Aqiba said, he may not finish.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they disagreed only about profane food. “The Cohanim for heave used to follow Rebbi Ismael.”

One may make honeywine on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: wine, honey, and pepper. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to mix but forbidden to grind. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Anything for mixing is permitted, for grinding is forbidden. But do we not deal here with mixing? Rebbi Jehudah ben Titus, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is a difference here since it is completion of production. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to break but forbidden to assemble. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: ground garlic. If it needed grinding it is forbidden, but if to mix into fat it is permitted. There, we have stated: “About garlic, unripe grapes, and grain kernels which he squashed when it was still daylight, Rebbi Ismael used to say, he should finish after nightfall, Rebbi Aqiba said, he may not finish.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they disagreed only about profane food. “The Cohanim for heave used to follow Rebbi Ismael.”

MISHNAH: But there are knots for which one is not liable as one is for a camel driver’s knot and a mariner’s knot. A woman may knot the openings of her garment, and the threads of the hair net, of the belt, and laces of shoe and sandal, wine and oil skins, and of a meat pot. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave; one may tie a pail to a belt but not to a rope, but Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Jehudah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.

MISHNAH: But there are knots for which one is not liable as one is for a camel driver’s knot and a mariner’s knot. A woman may knot the openings of her garment, and the threads of the hair net, of the belt, and laces of shoe and sandal, wine and oil skins, and of a meat pot. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave; one may tie a pail to a belt but not to a rope, but Rebbi Jehudah permits it. Rebbi Jehudah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.

“To a belt but not to a rope, but Rebbi Jehudah permits it.” Therefore the rabbis do not? But because the earlier statement was in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, so also this is in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “Rebbi Jehudah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So is the Mishnah: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent and which is temporary.

“To a belt but not to a rope, but Rebbi Jehudah permits it.” Therefore the rabbis do not? But because the earlier statement was in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, so also this is in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “Rebbi Jehudah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So is the Mishnah: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent and which is temporary.

“To a belt but not to a rope, but Rebbi Jehudah permits it.” Therefore the rabbis do not? But because the earlier statement was in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, so also this is in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “Rebbi Jehudah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So is the Mishnah: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent and which is temporary.

“To a belt but not to a rope, but Rebbi Jehudah permits it.” Therefore the rabbis do not? But because the earlier statement was in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, so also this is in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “Rebbi Jehudah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So is the Mishnah: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent and which is temporary.

“Where does one save it to? To a side street which is a dead end.” Therefore not to one which is a thoroughfare. Everywhere you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down, but here you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down. But one who is throwing. Everywhere you are saying, one who throws is not liable, but here you are saying, one who throws is liable. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: we are dealing with the case that they did not make an eruv. Ben Bathyra is like Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “One may move things under bridges which are thoroughfares, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages prohibit.”

“Where does one save it to? To a side street which is a dead end.” Therefore not to one which is a thoroughfare. Everywhere you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down, but here you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down. But one who is throwing. Everywhere you are saying, one who throws is not liable, but here you are saying, one who throws is liable. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: we are dealing with the case that they did not make an eruv. Ben Bathyra is like Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “One may move things under bridges which are thoroughfares, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages prohibit.”

MISHNAH: One may put a pot over a light lest it set fire to a beam, and over a child’s excrement, and over a scorpion to prevent it from stinging. Rebbi Jehudah said, this happened before Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Arab and he said, I fear that he incurred liability for a purification sacrifice.

“Because the latter are not prepared,” and they are used only connected to the ground. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Originally all implements could be taken on the Sabbath. Because they were suspected of desecrating holidays and Sabbaths as it is written, at that time I saw in Jehudah that they were working wine presses on the Sabbath … and loading on donkeys, etc., they forbade them everything. After they were fenced in they continued to permit to them until they permitted them everything except the big saw and the blade of the plough. Rebbi Yose said, also the engraver’s stylo. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also the anchor.” “A mortar, if there is garlic in it one may take it, otherwise one may not take it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it is a small mortar used at table then it is like a bowl and one moves it on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they formulated before implements were permitted.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rebbi Mana said, in the days of Rebbi Yose children were carrying Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rebbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? Lest you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, lest you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical [beams]. Rebbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical [beams]; but the vertical [beams] at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rebbi Yose said: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rebbi Mana said, in the days of Rebbi Yose children were carrying Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rebbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? Lest you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, lest you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical [beams]. Rebbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical [beams]; but the vertical [beams] at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rebbi Yose said: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rebbi Mana said, in the days of Rebbi Yose children were carrying Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rebbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? Lest you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, lest you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical [beams]. Rebbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical [beams]; but the vertical [beams] at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rebbi Yose said: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rebbi Mana said, in the days of Rebbi Yose children were carrying Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rebbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? Lest you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, lest you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical [beams]. Rebbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical [beams]; but the vertical [beams] at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rebbi Yose said: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rebbi Mana said, in the days of Rebbi Yose children were carrying Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rebbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? Lest you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, lest you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical [beams]. Rebbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical [beams]; but the vertical [beams] at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rebbi Yose said: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah who said, “they may be taken only for a need.” Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. One said, for a need, for a need of itself; not for a need, not for a need of itself. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself. But the other said, for a need, for a need of itself or of its place; not for a need, not for a need of itself or of its place. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself or of its place. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one moves full [containers] for no need and about empty [containers] which he intended to fill. Where did they disagree? About those which he has no intention to fill, where the House of Shammai prohibit and the House of Hillel permit. Does the House of Shammai come to parallel Rebbi Nehemiah? You say, practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah, but practice does not follow the House of Shammai.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah who said, “they may be taken only for a need.” Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. One said, for a need, for a need of itself; not for a need, not for a need of itself. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself. But the other said, for a need, for a need of itself or of its place; not for a need, not for a need of itself or of its place. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself or of its place. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one moves full [containers] for no need and about empty [containers] which he intended to fill. Where did they disagree? About those which he has no intention to fill, where the House of Shammai prohibit and the House of Hillel permit. Does the House of Shammai come to parallel Rebbi Nehemiah? You say, practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah, but practice does not follow the House of Shammai.

MISHNAH: Of all implements which may be taken on the Sabbath their breakage also may be taken as long as they are for some use: pieces from a trough to cover the top of an amphora, and of glass to cover the mouth of a phial. Rebbi Jehudah says, only if they can be used similarly to their original use: pieces from a trough to pour pap into them, and of glass to pour olive oil into them.

HALAKHAH: What is a dragged bolt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rebbi Jehudah . There came Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rebbi Yannai [the father-in-law of] Rebbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rebbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.

HALAKHAH: What is a dragged bolt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rebbi Jehudah . There came Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rebbi Yannai [the father-in-law of] Rebbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rebbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.

MISHNAH: One moves bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of shoots if they were prepared as animal feed; otherwise one does not move them. One turns over a basket before the chicks that they may climb up and down. A chicken which escaped one may push until it re-enters. One helps calves and fillies to walk in the public domain and a woman may help her son to walk. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he lifts one foot and puts the other one down but if he draws them it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi instructed to bring it in shoes. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos instructed to make a wall of people and to bring it in shoes. Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon had a case to circumcise his son, Rav Shishaa. They forgot to bring the knife. He asked Rebbi Mana who said, it should be deferred until tomorrow. He asked Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar who told them, you did not forget to mix spiced wine, but to bring a knife you forgot; it should be deferred until tomorrow.

It was stated: “A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew since he circumcises in the name of Mount Gerizim, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, where do we find that circumcision needs intent? Let him continue to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim until he dies!”

“The drawn should not circumcise lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised convert. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised; because that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Since we have stated that it is a compressed prepuce, it is implied that he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A son was born to Rav Ada bar Ahava in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, testicles became injured and he fasted for him; he died. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him; he died.

MISHNAH: One bathes the baby before and after the circumcision by sprinkling on him with one’s hand but not with a vessel. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one bathes the baby on the third day which falls on the Sabbath as it is said, it was on the third day when they were hurting. One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt or for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.

“One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt or for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” There, we have stated: “Everybody is liable to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite.”

What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agree with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, the rabbis emphazise uncircumcised. Why does the verse add male? Only if he be totally male. But Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, why does the verse add uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your maleness, except the hermaphrodite.

What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agree with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, the rabbis emphazise uncircumcised. Why does the verse add male? Only if he be totally male. But Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, why does the verse add uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your maleness, except the hermaphrodite.

What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agree with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, the rabbis emphazise uncircumcised. Why does the verse add male? Only if he be totally male. But Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, why does the verse add uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your maleness, except the hermaphrodite.

What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agree with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, the rabbis emphazise uncircumcised. Why does the verse add male? Only if he be totally male. But Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, why does the verse add uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your maleness, except the hermaphrodite.

What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agree with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, the rabbis emphazise uncircumcised. Why does the verse add male? Only if he be totally male. But Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, why does the verse add uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your maleness, except the hermaphrodite.

What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agree with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, the rabbis emphazise uncircumcised. Why does the verse add male? Only if he be totally male. But Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, why does the verse add uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your maleness, except the hermaphrodite.

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

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

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