la

THE fifth conformation. Another path goeth forth beneath the mouth. This is that which is written in the saying of Micah: “LA HChZIQ LOD APV, Lo Hecheziq Lead Apo, He hath not kept his anger for ever.” “Arise! Rabbi Yosi!”

Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: “He Who forms light and creates darkness”; one should not say: “He Who forms light and creates radiance.” Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: “There they sang for You”, one should not say: “There they praised You”. Rebbi Levi, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Levi bar Sisi: one has to pronounce tizkeru voiced. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: one has to pronounce ki lĕ‘ôlām ḥasdȏ voiced. It was stated: One does not take as reader anyone from Haifa, Beth Sheän or Tiv‘on since they read ח like ה and ע like א. If his pronunciation was orderly, it would be permitted.

They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Yose said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand.

Where is a warning about calumny? (Deut. 23:10) “Keep yourself from every evil word!” Rebbi La said that Rebbi Ismaël stated (Lev.19:10): “Do not walk around as slanderer among your people,” that is slandering, calumny. Rebbi Nehemiah stated that you should not be like a trader who carries things from one person to another and vice versa.

From where that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Poor and rich, justify him” in his gifts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: (Ex. 23:6) “Do not bend the lawsuit of your destitute.” In his lawsuit, you may not bend, but you may bend for him in his gifts. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquires in this case, as Rebbi instructed us (Lev. 19:10, 23:22): “abandon,” put something before him of your own. Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19–21): “It shall be the sojourner’s, the orphan’s, and the widow’s;” give him both from yours and from his!

HALAKHAH: Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “You will forget a sheaf on the field,” a sheaf you forget forever; this excludes one you certainly will remember after some time.

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (Lev. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add its fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth year after planting; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption, one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth year after planting.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only demay is mentioned, hence one is obligated if they are certain. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are free whether demay or certain. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, didn’t they mention only demay? Hence if it is certain, is it not obligated? Rebbi La said, since at every place he considers only demay, here he quotes only demay.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings, it never got sour; they made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour, it is obligated.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we stated there: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rebbi Jehudah obligates him.” And here he says so! Rebbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi La: Why demay and not also what is certain, why a little bit, maybe the greater part? Did we not state: One does not bring the heave from the threshing floor to town, nor from the prairie to cultivated land, except in a place where [an animal] would drag it away; in that case he brings it and takes money from the tribe. He said to him, is it not a commandment to return a find? Rebbi Yose said, it is a commandment to return a find in small matters; it is not a commandment to return in large matters, except if it is certain; it is not a commandment to return demay since we have stated: “one may destroy a small part of it on the road”. So far, if he had no money in hand. If he had money in hand? Rebbi Neḥumai, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, my father had money in a double sack and he did not redeem. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba holds with Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Immi.

It was stated: “Everybody who comes has to accept, even a learned ḥaver; but a rabbi who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rebbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on. Rebbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a ḥaver and an am ḥaäreẓ? The position of Rebbi La parallels that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him. He said to them, I shall come to your house; I am an am haäreẓ with respect to purities.

It was stated: “Everybody who comes has to accept, even a learned ḥaver; but a rabbi who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rebbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on. Rebbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a ḥaver and an am ḥaäreẓ? The position of Rebbi La parallels that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him. He said to them, I shall come to your house; I am an am haäreẓ with respect to purities.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

There you say, he separates heave and delivers to him. Here you say, he tithes and delivers to him. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages fined the one who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine the one who leases from a Jew. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile but not to him who leases from a Jew.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

“ That all tithes should be mine as long as you own it, he gets its tithes as long as the buyer owns it.” When he sold it to a third party, he has no tithes. If the buyer then bought it back from the third party, Rebbi Ḥiyya states that he has no tithes, Rebbi Hoshaia states that the tithes are his. This disagreement turns out like the other disagreement, as we have stated there “that he who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah.” Rebbi Ḥanin stated before Rebbi La: Two Amoraïm, one says for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, and the other says, both for ketubah and individual stipulations. For him who says, for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, he has the tithes. For him who says, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations, he has no tithes. But did we not state: “If somebody received (as sharecropper) from the daughter of a Cohen, she has the tithes. If she married an Israel, they split the tithes. If she was widowed or divorced, she returns to her prior status.” There when he sold, here when he received. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “When she sold?” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there it left the power of both parties; here, it left the power of the seller but not that of the buyer.

It was stated: From where that one may not graft a tree bearing no edible fruit onto a fruit-bearing tree, or a fruit-bearing tree onto another fruit-bearing tree of a kind that is not his own kind, from where? The verse says (Lev. 19:19): “You must keep My basic Laws.” Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar, in the name of Cahana: This is Rebbi Eleazar’s, “because of the basic Laws I gave.” If this is so, it was forbidden to Adam, the first man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La, it is the opinion of everybody, because of the basic Laws that I gave to My world. If it is so, is should be forbidden to graft a black fig tree on a white fig tree. Rebbi Avin said, did you not infer the rules from kilaim of textiles? Just as for kilaim of textiles two kinds, not one from this kind and the other from the other kind, also any other kilaim that I forbade you, not one from this kind and the other from the other kind.

Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say that it is Rebbi Meïr’s. [An animal] which was worshipped: Some Tannaïm state that it is forbidden whether it is his own or somebody else’s; some Tannaïm state that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted. They wanted to say, the opinion that it is forbidden whether it is his own or somebody else’s is Rebbi Meïr’s and Rebbi Jehudah’s; the opinion that his own is forbidden, somebody else’s is permitted, is Rebbi Yose’s and Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there that a living thing is forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person, so anything that is not yours may be forbidden for Heaven even though it is permitted for the private person.

“When is the property called the rapist’s? From the moment it is sunk.” Rebbi Aḥa said: If the owners were forgotten but did not give up hope, the prohibition of the field is biblical. If the owners did give up hope but they were not forgotten, the prohibition of the field is rabbinic. But can real estate be robbed? Rebbi La said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, one can give up hope on real estate.

HALAKHAH: “Hand towels, etc.” There, we have stated: “There are three kinds of towels. Hand towels may become impure by load; scroll wraps may become impure by the dead; the wrappings of the Levites’ harps are always pure.” Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one may put them on the pillow and sleep on them. Rav said, because he puts them under his upper arms.

HALAKHAH: “Ten saplings, etc.“Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi La, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said the willow is a word of the Torah (Lev. 23:40): “Brook willows,” two. One willow for the lulab, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, willow and pouring of water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah. On the second day, (Num. 29:19) “and their libations.” On the sixth day, (Num. 29:31) “and its libations.” On the seventh day, (Num. 29:33) “and its rules.” מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough.

“One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted he has to uproot it.” If one did not uproot, what is with its yield? Rebbi Abba and Rebbi La were sitting in Tyre when a case came before them. Rebbi La taught that the fruits should be thrown away. Rebbi Abba said, I was not counted with them on the upper floor. They said, let us go out and study. They went out and heard Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not make a new restriction. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add to a restriction.

“One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted he has to uproot it.” If one did not uproot, what is with its yield? Rebbi Abba and Rebbi La were sitting in Tyre when a case came before them. Rebbi La taught that the fruits should be thrown away. Rebbi Abba said, I was not counted with them on the upper floor. They said, let us go out and study. They went out and heard Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not make a new restriction. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add to a restriction.

“Arum of the year before the Sabbatical” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not so also in the other years of the cycle since we have stated: “If it was the second year entering the third, he may not bend it or withhold water from it so it should be Second Tithe; if it was the third year entering the fourth, he may bend it and withhold water from it so it should be tithe of the poor”? This implies that bending down is like tearing out! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Explain that he tore them out before they started to grow.

There, we have stated: One does not knead or form bread with a baker working in impurity. And it was stated additionally: One should neither cull nor grind nor sift with him. And here, it says so? Rebbi La said, Here for profane [bread], there for heave. But did we not stated "a baker"? Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues say, one if he washes, there if he does not wash. The Mishnah supports the colleagues: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in because one does not support transgressors.”

It was stated: “The store owner who was cooking vegetables during the Sabbatical should not compute his profit on the value of Sabbatical [produce] but rather compute it on wine, oil, and lost time “Rebbi La commanded the makers of fried food: “Do not compute your gain on the oil but on the wheat.”

HALAKHAH: It is written (Lev. 25:5) “The aftergrowth of your harvest you should not reap.” That means, not in the way of reapers. Rebbi La said, if it cannot refer to forbidden aftergrowth, take it to refer to permitted aftergrowth. Rebbi Mana said, it is needed for itself when it grew by itself. You should not say that since it grew by itself it is permitted; therefore it was necessary to say that it is forbidden. “The aftergrowth of your harvest you should not reap and the grapes of your wild growth you should not process into wine.” You may not harvest grapes from what is being watched over on the land, but you may gather grapes from what is abandoned. “You should not process into wine,” not in the way of vintners. From here, they said that “one does not cut Sabbatical figs with the fig-knife but he may cut with a dagger. One does not tread grapes in the wine press but he may tread in a trough. One does not work olives in the oil press and with a roller.” Our teachers permitted to use a roller.

Who states “the deaf-mute?” Not Rebbi Jehudah, since it was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sons of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudgada were all deaf-mutes and all purities in Jerusalem were handled by them. They said to him, because purities do not need thought and may be produced by a deaf-mute, an insane, and a minor. But heaves and tithes need thought and do not become invalidated by absent-mindedness.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Thought is not written in regard to them, only watching.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not ḥereš. But we have stated: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meїr: His heave is never heave unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.” Anybody for whom “thought” is written may give heave. But anybody for whom “thought” is not written cannot give heave. They objected: But “thought” is not written for a Gentile, and he may give heave! Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi La (Num. 18:32): “You should not carry guilt because of it.” He who may carry guilt can give heave, he who cannot carry guilt cannot give heave. They objected: But a Gentile cannot incur guilt, and he may give heave! And did not Rebbi Hoshaia state that Gentiles have no “thought”? That is for preparation, here we talk about heave.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with eggs and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “ They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

“If they grew roots in a box they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they did not lose their impurity. If they grew roots in storage they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they lost their impurity.” They are in their previous state and you say they lost? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: The Torah emphasized the purity of growing plants (Lev. 11:37): “If from their carcass anything fell on any sown seed which may be sown, it is pure.”

Or it may follow this: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, grafted, or sank he has to uproot it.” If one did not uproot, what is with its yield? Rebbi Abba [and] Rebbi Immi were sitting in Tyre when a case came before them. Rebbi La taught that the fruits should be thrown away. Rebbi Abba said, I was not counted with them on the upper floor. They said, let us go out and study. They went out and heard Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not make a new restriction. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add to an established practice.

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (Lev. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add their fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth-year orchard; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption, one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth-year orchard.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with olives and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “They said to him, the only food fluids called fluid are wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. [One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit?] Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Assi: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he siphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before lumps were formed and he siphoned off, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia followed Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before [Rebbi Immi] and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Half-pipes and rods were formulated before implements were permitted. One may not move planks of a ship on the Sabbath. If they cover implements or food they are like covers of any implement and may be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi La said, even although you are saying “like covers of implements”, this is only if they have the designation of an implement.

If a porch was totally open to the public domain, Rebbi La: [Rav] and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, one may carry in its entirety; Samuel said, one may carry in it only four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, does not Samuel agree that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified? But Samuel must hold, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. There came Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. Rebbi Yose said, even if Samuel would think that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified, an alley is not comparable to a porch. An alley is made for the use of the adjacent houses, a porch is made for the use (of a thing). If an alley is not roofed but there is a beam within twenty cubits, would it not be qualified? But if a porch is not roofed although there is a beam within twenty cubits, would that mean anything?

In a corral which covers two bet se’ah one is permitted only to carry a distance of four cubits. If there were two, each one a bet se’ah minus four cubits; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one carries in the second as complement of the first. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not carry in the second as complement of the first. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi La agrees that if there were three. Each of the three a bet se’ah, one agrees that one carries in the second as complement of the first.

In a corral which covers two bet se’ah one is permitted only to carry a distance of four cubits. If there were two, each one a bet se’ah minus four cubits; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one carries in the second as complement of the first. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not carry in the second as complement of the first. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi La agrees that if there were three. Each of the three a bet se’ah, one agrees that one carries in the second as complement of the first.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left with permission,” etc. For otherwise what would we say? That he should be treated like somebody who left by compulsion and he should have only four cubits. Therefore it was necessary to say, “he has 2’000 cubits in each direction.” Rav Ḥuna says, only if four cubits each intersect with the domain of Tiberias and with the domain of Magdala. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Even if he went to Magdala and returned he is as if he had not left. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: So far if he left in error. Even if he left intentionally? Rebbi Phineas said, the Mishnah says so: “for all those who leave to save may return to their place.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Two courtyards, one inside the other,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s since Rebbi Aqiba said, the right of access makes it forbidden . Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, forbidden right of access makes it forbidden.

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; there is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile. There is no rule of enclosure for a Gentile; for if he dwelt on an upper floor you take him down to forbid. There is no rule of stone partitions for a Gentile for if he dwelt in the inner [courtyard] you would take him out to forbid. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is a rule of enclosure for a Gentile, for if an Israel and a Gentile were dwelling in the inner [courtyard] he never forbids unless there be two Israel. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: He who has a stone partition inside his house ten hand-breadths high, if an Israel he does not forbid, if a Gentile he forbids. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall was surrounded by ladders on both sides one makes two eruvin but not one eruv. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there because of the ladders they have the status of doors, but here from the upper floors one is used to descend, from the lower one is not used to ascend.

It was stated: “One may use anything to reduce, stones, bricks, a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder if it was fastened.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even if it was not fastened. But was it not stated “if it was fastened”? Rebbi Abba said, if it was dedicated for this purpose. Rebbi La instructed following this Tanna, only if it was fastened. Both Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, one in the name of Mar Uqban, and one in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: It is necessary that between two steps there be less than three [hand-breadths] and each be four hand-breadths wide; the posts complement the four. Yasa said, a block in which he carved steps reduces. In any case, the posts do not complement ten; it is like a high step. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: It must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as separate place. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The step which reduces from ten must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as a separate place. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked: If one brought a board of seven hand-breadths and raised it less than three from the ground, is it permitted? There you are saying, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed, and here you should be saying, everything less than four [handbreadths] is considered closed. If you want to object, object to the following: If one brought a wall of slightly more than four hand-breadths and raised it less than two hand-breadths from the ground, should it come following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four hand-breadths, on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they did not make an eruv. But if they made an eruv the courtyard becomes like the houses. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is the same whether they made an eruv or they did not make an eruv. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeˋira: “not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house.” If they did not make an eruv, is this necessary? It is forbidden to remove from the roof, not so much to the roof? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: When each one made an eruv by itself; even then not for the vessels which started the Sabbath in the house.

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

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated.“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. And for these, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated.“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. And for these, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling. It is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail, the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels. But here, for you, all you have use for.

HALAKHAH: Therefore, the day is forbidden. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “A day of Pesaḥ it is for the Eternal.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Two students formulated it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, I found to say that they are three. One said, it is forbidden, another said, it is permitted, and another said it is a matter of usage.

How did they bundle the šemaˋ? Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi La said: Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, our God, the Eternal is One, only they did not stop between words, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, they did stop but they did not say “Praised be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi La said: Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, etc., only they did not stop between One and “Praised”, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, they did stop but they did not say “Praised be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever.”

How did they bundle the šemaˋ? Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi La said: Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, our God, the Eternal is One, only they did not stop between words, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, they did stop but they did not say “Praised be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi La said: Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, etc., only they did not stop between One and “Praised”, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, they did stop but they did not say “Praised be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever.”

Rebbi Abba bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: If one leased his house to another and needs the money? He said to him, it is unthinkable that he should have to starve to death. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi [Il]la both say, μίστωσις like ὠνή is acquired by buying. It was stated: If one leased his house to another and went and dedicated it, [the renter] lives in it and pays the rent to the Sanctuary. When? If he did not pay the rent in advance, but if he paid the rent in advance he lives there for free. In the days of Rebbi Mana there was a company in Sepphoris, and their children were taken as pledges. When they were about to leave, Rebbi Mana published (so) [a proclamation] following Rebbi Immi. He said, not that I am of his opinion, but because of the Sepphoreans that they should not permanently lose their children.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

There, you are saying: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights.” And here you are saying so? Rebbi La said, one if it is living, the other if it is slaughtered.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing. If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering. But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified. There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed. “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time, or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time, Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ.” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing. If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering. But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified. There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed. “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time, or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time, Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ.” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed.

HALAKHAH: It is written, he sprinkled from it, from its entirety. Rebbi Abuna said, only from a complete sacrifice. “It is written, they shall burn it, and he shall burn it, and he shall burn them. Why does the verse say they shall burn it, the qualified, not the disqualified. And he shall burn it, that he may not mix fat with fat. And he shall burn them, all of them together.” Here you are saying, and he shall burn it, that he may not mix fat with fat; and there you are saying, and he shall burn them, all of them together. Rebbi La said, here in the tureen, there on the top of the altar.

Rebbi Mana said, I heard from Rebbi Yudan and from all the rabbis, why does one honor the lower house? So that divisions should not grow in Israel. Three put down their crowns in this world and inherited the life of the Future World. And these are: Jonathan the son of Saul, and Eleazar ben Azariah, and the Elders of Bathyra. Jonathan the son of Saul. Rebbi La said, even the women behind the loom did know that David would rule in the future. Eleazar ben Azaria was Second in rank. There are among these only the Elders of Bathyra who freed themselves of the Patriarchate and appointed him Patriarch. The rabbis of Caesarea said, also Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris for Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai said, all my days I fled from authority. Now that I entered, anybody who would remove me I would treat like a water kettle. As the kettle burns, and injures, and chars, so I would treat him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, heaven forbid that he wanted this. But he said, who could tell me that he would sanctify the Name of Heaven as I am doing.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about one “which comes in impurity from the start.” But if it came in purity and then became impure, it cannot be eaten in impurity. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the public became impure, the blood shall be poured in purity but the meat not eaten in impurity.” (Should one not say the same for pouring?) [Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Nathan’s, as Rebbi Nathan said, one has fulfilled his duty by pouring without eating. “If it was slaughtered in purity but then the blood collected became impure, the blood may be poured in impurity but the meat may not be eaten in impurity.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the bad impression, lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity which was [poured] {eaten} in impurity. Then should not the blood be poured in impurity?] Lest they say, we have seen a Pesaḥ brought in purity for which it was poured in impurity. You have to end up saying that it is Rebbi Nathan’s. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a sick or an old person. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group whose officiant became impure, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Nathan agrees for a group where a wart was found, that they are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

If he removed with his left hand, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Jehudah ben Rebbi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a fistful had been sanctified in a dedicated vessel and he burned it whether out of his hand or out of a vessel, whether by his right hand or by the left. Jehudah ben Rebbi said, either like a purification offering from the hand, or like a reparation offering from a vessel, but only with the right hand. They objected: Was it not stated, if he received with his right hand and then put it into his left hand, he must return it to the right hand? If from the left hand he returns it for the altar, not so much more to the cup? Rebbi La said, if somebody stated this, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon stated it. As it was stated, it does not need sanctification in a cup. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated there, “not in a dedicated vessel it is disqualified, but Rebbi Simeon qualifies it.” How is it? The rabbis who require a dedicated vessel need the right hand; Rebbi Simeon [who] does not require a dedicated vessel does not need the right hand. Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how the rabbis could compare the removal of ashes to burning, but it can be compared only to the lifting of the fistful, since both are by lifting.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes. It is unnecessary. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place, that its place shall be pure. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it, he shall burn incense. Since sprinkling is on its body, also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior.

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

“Incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful. It is said here “remembrance” and it is said there, “remembrance”. Since “remembrance” there means a full fistful, so “remembrance” here must mean a full fistful. Since “remembrance” there means two fistfuls, does “remembrance” here mean two fistfuls? Rebbi La said, they inferred fistfuls only from the shew bread. Since there a deficient fistful is disqualified, also here a deficient fistful is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, the word of Rebbi Ila implies that one who volunteers a flour offering brings it according to the High Priest’s fistful. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: even according to the owner’s fistful.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, because of what had happened. Once there was a rumor in the city that Saracens had come and took them, and the Levites spoiled the song. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said before Rebbi Ze`ira that the colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, in whose name does the rabbi say this? He said to them, that is like you who have many teachers! In the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi did he say it. But Rebbi La brought the reason for the practice, as it was stated: They were saying the song of Thursday, shout with joy for our mighty God. But on New Year’s Day they were saying, I removed his shoulder from hardship. If the holiday fell on Thursday, in the morning they did say, shout with joy for our mighty God. In the afternoon they did say, I removed his shoulder from hardship; if they came after the afternoon prayers, they would say, shout with joy for our mighty God. Would they not say the song twice?

HALAKHAH: They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Come and see, if it falls so that in walled cities one should read on the Sabbath, one reads on Friday. If it falls so that in villages one should read on the Sabbath, it is being pushed to the market day! Rebbi La said, because of the honor of walled cities, that one should not say, we saw walled cities and villages read at the same day. Then it should not be pushed to the market day, that one should not say, we saw hamlets and villages read on the same day. Then if it falls on Monday, falls on [Thursday, falls on] the Sabbath? It was found stated, Hamlets [and villages] and walled cities may read together; and this Tanna does not show (respect) [even] for any creature. He holds that walled cities cannot precede villages; he holds that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. “Rebbi says, all shall be pushed to the market day.” For he holds that walled cities cannot precede villages; for he holds that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. How does one act? Rebbi Yose said, following the Mishnah.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the Levites’ song they should not have less than six readings; its mnemonic is hazayu laḵ. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: [the Song on the Sea] and Deborah’s song are written space on brick and brick on space. The ten sons of Haman and the kings of Canaan are written space on space and brick on brick, since any such building will not stand. How is that, as meritorious act or as impediment? Rebbi said to Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother, do you remember when we were standing in front of your uncle’s store that Rebbi Abba bar Zavda passed by and we asked him when he said in the name of Rav: an impediment?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated so that the eighth day was a separate holiday, a separate lottery, a separate benediction, a separate sacrifice. Holiday, as Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, for all of them is written and on day, but here is written on day, to teach you that it is a separate holiday. Lottery, Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” Benediction, Rebbi La said, time. Sacrifice, one bull and one ram.

“They agree that if it falls on the Sabbath that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath.” So the House of Hillel are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath. Whose are the hides? Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, of all watches. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, of this watch. And you are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath; whose are the hides? The disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Pentecost has all of seven days as make-up. Rav Hoshaia objected: was it not stated, just as the New Moon is one day after its count, to Pentecost is one day after its count? Rebbi La said, if he did not bring his holiday sacrifice on the first day, he may bring it all seven days.

HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there, “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior.

Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold, etc. The Torah called it real estate. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis, the altar is of wood, three cubits its height, etc. The Torah called it movable. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense. But is it not like a table made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there, “there are three baskets”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales.

One understands pumped water. Rain water? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decided about rain water because it is like pumped water. Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi La: They stated this only on a holiday; therefore in the Sabbatical it is permitted. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden.

Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Because one does not mix one joy with another joy. Rebbi La understood it from the following: For they celebrated the initiation of the altar for seven days and the holiday for seven days. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa understood it from the following: finish the week of this one. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because of the exertion. It was stated: But one may plan and marry on the eve of a holiday. This does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar; this does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan. And even with Rebbi Ḥanina it does not disagree. Rebbi Abba said, when the bride enters the exertion leaves.

Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis said, merchandize is foreclosed from the property of orphans. They wanted to say, if there are witnesses; therefore not if there are no witnesses. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi La: It is necessary that witnesses know since if there are no witnesses who know it is treated as a deposit. [So we are saying,] a deposit is not forclosed from the property of minor orphans. What is the difference from a loan? A loan is given to be spent, but this was not given to be spent.

There, we have stated: “Whom did they excommunicate? Eleazar ben Hannad who questioned the purity of hands.” This implies that one who questions even one of the words of the Sopherim needs excommunication. There, we have stated: “They let her drink dikma.” What is dikma? An imitation. “They excommunicated him, he died in his excommunication, and the Court stoned his coffin. To teach you that one stones the coffin of anybody dying in his excommunication.” This implies that anybody insulting an Elder, even after his death, needs to be excommunicated. In the days of Rebbi Ze`ira they were excommunicating and readmitting. (He said to them, no.) [Rebbi La said to them:] Now one excommunicates and now one readmits? They took up the matter and voted, when he changes his opinion one readmits them.

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak isḥereš. But we have stated: “Ḥalîṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba in the case of an Israel. The words of the Rabbis say the same since Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi (Aqiba) [Jacob] bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, one does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination. It happened that somebody came before Rebbi Tarphon about a woman who wanted to remarry. He said to him, my son, how can you testify for the woman that she can remarry? He said to him, Rabbi, he was with us in a caravan when we were attacked by an armed gang. He hung himself at a branch of an olive tree, tore it off, ran after the armed gang and returned. I said to him, my son, I am praising you as a lion. He said to me, you got my name well; in my city I am called Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, my son, you said very well Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. I said to him, did you not say Jonathan ben Joḥanan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla? He said to me, no, what I said was Joḥanan ben Jonathan the lion from Kefar Shiḥla. After some time he became sick and died; Rebbi Tarphon checked out his testimony and let his widow remarry. It was found stated: “One does not subject witnesses to a death to cross-examination, against Rebbi Tarphon, since Rebbi Tarphon said, one subjects witnesses to a death to cross-examination.

HALAKHAH: “All the time she lives in her father’s house,” etc. For the good she received; her properties became delivered during her husband’s lifetime and after 25 years she gave up the claim to her ketubah. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi La: One understands for a woman who has no ketubah. But should a woman who has a ketubah not be able to collect forever? He answered him, it tells you more: Even a woman who has a ketubah collects only up to 25 years. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar says, the creditor collects forever. He said only, “the creditor”; but a woman can collect only up to years. Rebbi Abin said, this is reasonable only for a woman who is not being supported. But for a woman who is being supported, I say that she did not claim it because of her support.

The following is obvious: If her husband did not dissolve for the first [woman] and she transgressed her vow, she is whipped. Can the second be whipped? Rebbi Yose said, since one is whipped, the other also is whipped. Rebbi La said, this follows Rebbi Simeon. Can the second not be considered like one who said, I am a nezirah after twenty days? Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion; for Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the custom of offerers.

There, we have stated: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.” Rebbi Abba said, he has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce, Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place.

There, we have stated: One does not knead or form bread with a baker working in impurity. And it was stated additionally: One should neither cull nor grind with him. And here, it says so? Rebbi La said, here for profane [bread], there for heave. Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues say, one if he washes, there if he does not wash. The Mishnah supports the colleagues: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in.”

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Since for the pit, which is not usually moving, one has to pay full damages, not so much more for the bull which usually is moving? Either since for the pit one pays full damages, also the bull pays full damages, or since the bull pays half damages, also for the pit one should have to pay half damages. If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit; if “the pit” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things. Similarly, the seat is not like the bed and the bed is not like the seat. One understands that the seat is not like the bed. The seat a square ṭephaḥ large can become impure; the bed four ṭephaḥim large can become impure. Because He declared a bed four ṭephaḥim large as impure, would a seat a square ṭephaḥ large become impure? If the seat had not been written, I would have inferred seat from bed. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. Similarly, the paragraph on lighting the candles is not like the paragraph about exiling the impure and the paragraph on exiling the impure is not like the paragraph about lighting the candles. If the paragraph about exiling the impure had not been written, I would have inferred the rules of the paragraph on exiling the impure from the paragraph on lighting the candles. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. So what is equal about them is that they are “command” here and in future generations, so everything by “command” is for here and for future generations. Rebbi La said, it is necessary that all be written; and the bull teaches that the owners have to deal with the cadaver. But it is written, “and the cadaver shall be his”, and it is written for the pit, “and the cadaver shall be his”! Rebbi Ismael said, this excludes real estate which cannot be moved; it excludes a human because there can be no usufruct from him in death. But the fire teaches for all of them that one is responsible for accidents.

HALAKHAH: “If his jar was broken in the public domain,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, they disagree at the moment of the accident. But after the accident everybody agrees that he must pay. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the disagreement is both at the moment of the accident and afterwards. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Eleazar: If he does not have to pay at the moment of the accident, is it not an inference de minore ad majus afterwards? Why should he be free at the moment of the accident? For a person declares his damaged property in the public domain as ownerless. A baraita supports both of them, as it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah that somebody who puts down his stone or his load in the public domain does not have to pay if another person stumbled over it, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land.” Therefore, if Joshua had not distributed the Land on this condition, he would have to pay. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he intended use of the potsherds. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, if he intended to cause damage. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi La both say that Rebbi Jehudah agrees with the Sages that one has to pay if he declares his bull who gored in the public domain ownerless. Stationary damage cannot be compared to walking damage.

HALAKHAH: “Two potters were walking one behind the other,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Does one give time to the first to get up? Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Joḥanan to give time to the first to stand up. But it is reasonable otherwise from the second one onwards, does one give time to the second to stand up? Let us hear from the following: “Potters were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. They are liable for damage to humans but not liable for damage to vessels. But if they (damaged) [warned] one another, none are liable. Donkey drivers were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell. The first one pays to the second, and the second to the third. But if all fell because of the first, he pays for all of them. Donkeys were walking one behind the other. The first stumbled and fell, the next one stumbled and fell: even 100, all are liable.” Some Tannaïm state, none are liable. Rebbi La said, he who says ‘liable’, if their owner let them lie down. He who says ‘not liable’, if they fell, since animals are not responsible for accidents. “If the feet of a donkey were bad, one is not allowed to step over him. [ ]” What does it mean, ‘to step over him?’ They step on his body and pass by. “If one was free, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the free one. One unloaded, the other one loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were loaded or both unloaded, let them agree between themselves. Two carriages or two ships, one empty, the other loaded, the loaded one has the right of way before the unloaded one. If both were unloaded or loaded, let them agree between themselves.” “The person entering the bath house gives precedence to the person leaving; the person leaving the toilet gives precedence to the person entering.”

HALAKHAH: “A bull worth a mina” etc. “A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth a mina; weakened (it) in the amount of 50 zuz; he takes the bull, for he gets only half the amount of the injury and therefore, if the bull died or was weakened, he only has that bull. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and weakened it in the amount of 50 zuz; then the second [bull] couter-attacked and injured it to the amount of three gold [denars]. The first pays half a gold denar to the second. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200. It increased in value and now is worth 400; but if it had not gored it, it would now be worth 800 zuz. If it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage. If it was weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.” Rebbi La said, so is the baraita: The agressor improved; if it improved before the trial it is judged as at the time of the damage; if it weakened, it is judged as at the time of the trial.

HALAKHAH: “The bull of an Israel which gored a bull of a non-Jew,” etc. Rav said, “He saw and permitted Gentiles,” He permitted the Gentiles’ money. Ḥizqiah said, “He appeared from Mont Paran,” He appeared in front of the Gentiles; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, He made them poor. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, following their laws. Rebbi La said, this was not said referring to this topic, but to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If a Gentile’s bull gored another Gentile’s bull, even though they accepted to be judged by the laws of Israel, he is liable for full damages whether tame or notorious. On that it was said that Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, following their laws.

Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said, everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother) the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for fetuses. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “If people quarrel”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “When they quarrel,” “when they brawl”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which was rubbing itself against a wall,” etc. “A man who kills any human soul,” to include a hit which is potentially deadly. Some Tannaïm state, even if it is not deadly. Rebbi La said, even if it is deadly but a third person came and killed, the killer is guilty. “And it killed a man or a woman,” just as a man lets his sons inherit his injury claims, so a woman lets her sons inherit her injury claims. But does not a man inherit from his wife? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explain: One teaches here about weregilt which is due after death.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: “He who brings a flock into a corral,” etc. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: In disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Eleazar’s statement is convincing since watching the animal itself is written only for “horn”. What about it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in disagreement. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Some say, it follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob who said, in no case is he liable.

HALAKHAH: “This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything. If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse: “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.

HALAKHAH: “If two people hold on to one stole,” etc. It was stated: One person said to another, give me the mina which you owe me. He answered, it never happened. He went and brought witnesses that the other owed him 50 zuz. The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, the confession of the witnesses is the same as his own confession; he has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the confession of the witnesses is not the same as his own confession that he should have to swear. Rebbi La said, Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder’s statement is implied by “if two people hold on to one stole”. Since he holds on to half of it, is it not as if he brought witnesses that one half belongs to him? Could one not say that he swears and collects? Is this a similar case?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lease a cow from another person,” etc. But does he have permission to lend it? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The borrower cannot lend, nor the lessee lease, nor the borrower lease, nor the lessee lend, unless he received permission from the owners.” Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he gave permission to lease. And here, only if he gave permission to let him be a steward. Rebbi Abbahu asked: If the owners borrowed it and it died of natural causes, should the lessee swear that it died a natural death and the borrower pay the renter? Rebbi Abinna said, if they ate it, they ate their own property. “Rebbi Yose said, how can this one treat another person’s cow as his merchandise? But [the value of] the cow shall be returned to its owner.”