laqish

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened: One hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden; this remainder will be permitted if they have been opened. Rebbi Zeïra said, he said only “if they have been opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: So far if he robbed the real estate. If he robbed a vine and planted it, does he not owe money? But the rabbis have a problem: do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not bring; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may bring. Everybody agrees that from a worshipped tree which was damaged one cannot bring logs for the altar fire. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, may he take a lulav from it? Do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not take; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may take. It is obvious that he may take a lulav from it and commandments are not like Temple sacrifices. May he bring First Fruits? According to Rebbi Jehudah who compares them to country sacred food he may bring; according to the rabbis who compare them to Temple sacrifices he may not bring.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

“It is written (Deut. 26:11): ‘You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave you and your house.’ This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife’s property and makes the declaration.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule.

“It is written (Deut. 26:11): ‘You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave you and your house.’ This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife’s property and makes the declaration.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule.

“It is written (Deut. 26:11): ‘You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave you and your house.’ This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife’s property and makes the declaration.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Sixteen mil in a circle around Sepphoris is the Land flowing with milk and honey. Rebbi Jonah said, if one measures as the crow flies, the outskirts of Beth Shean belong to it. If one measures as the crow flies, the valley of Genezareth belongs to it. One objected to Rebbi Jonah: (Ex. 3:17) “I said, I shall lift you from the deprivation of Egypt” (Ex. 3:8) “into a good and wide land, [to] a land flowing with milk and honey”! He said to them, which contains [stretches of] milk and honey.

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”

HALAKHAH: It is true that heave makes the threshing floor forbidden? Explain it if he gave it early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First Tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave.

From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover (which is on the Ark of the Covenant)from between the two Cherubim. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it is only make a golden wreath as its frame all around? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth.

Rebbi Eleazar asked, may one make the Tent of leather from an impure animal? But is it not written, and taḥaš skins. Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Nehemiah and the rabbis. Rebbi Jehudah says, violet; it was called thus because of its color. Rebbi Nehemiah said, blue. But the rabbis say, a kind of pure animal which grows up in the desert. It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: The Holy One, praise to Him, created for Moses in the desert a kind of pure aniMal. After the work of the Tabernacle had been finished it was hidden. Rebbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a unicorn. It is preferable to the Eternal over a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves. The All-Merciful wrote, it sprouts a horn.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put a vessel under the light to catch the oil but when he put it there when it still was daylight it is permitted. One may not use it because it is not prepared,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it burned out when it still was day but he realized it only after it was dark? The colleagues asked: If it burned out on this Sabbath but he realized it only afterwards on the Sabbath? Rebbi Joḥanan said, nothing in its natural form is not prepared except one item. Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is not oil in the lamp in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the lamp. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected: Is not seed grain in its natural form, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the ground. They objected: Are there not eggs used for chicks which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! They were put there from the start to become chicks. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: Are there not Sukkah decorations which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! There is a difference, as Rebbi Abba Mari, Rebbi Yose’s brother, said: For the seven days they become insignificant in the Sukkah. Afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Is not lint which was scattered in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food. Rebbi Nasa objected, are there not figs put out to ferment, which dried but he did not touch, in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, you, what are you saying? He told them, I only have the Mishnah: “One may move any light except one which was burning on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish instructed in al-Tarabulus, it is permitted to move a small light. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rebbi Abbahu. Before Rebbi Ḥelbo they did not take away, before Rebbi Abbahu they took away. Rebbi Yasa visited Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya. He wanted to remove it before him. He told him, before us? Rebbi Yose the Galilean came before Yose ben Ḥanina; he wanted to take it away, he told him, who permitted you? It is found Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan, who forbid, are one. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who permit, are one. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina: It happened and they moved a metal lamp instead of a pottery light on the Sabbath. Where do we hold? If following Rebbi Meїr, even the metal lamp should be forbidden. If following Rebbi Simeon, even a pottery light should be permitted. But we are following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah is the one who said, a pottery light is disgusting, a metal light is not disgusting.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, you, what are you saying? He told them, I only have the Mishnah: “One may move any light except one which was burning on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish instructed in al-Tarabulus, it is permitted to move a small light. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rebbi Abbahu. Before Rebbi Ḥelbo they did not take away, before Rebbi Abbahu they took away. Rebbi Yasa visited Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya. He wanted to remove it before him. He told him, before us? Rebbi Yose the Galilean came before Yose ben Ḥanina; he wanted to take it away, he told him, who permitted you? It is found Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan, who forbid, are one. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who permit, are one. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina: It happened and they moved a metal lamp instead of a pottery light on the Sabbath. Where do we hold? If following Rebbi Meїr, even the metal lamp should be forbidden. If following Rebbi Simeon, even a pottery light should be permitted. But we are following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah is the one who said, a pottery light is disgusting, a metal light is not disgusting.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish desired to meet Samuel. They said, let us go after what is heard. They passed by a school and heard a child’s voice, and Samuel died. They noted it and so it had happened.

An adult who was taken captive among Gentiles. Rav and Samuel, one said, he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, but the other said, he keeps the Sabbath and counts six. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, five and keeps the Sabbath, four and keeps the Sabbath, three and keeps the Sabbath, two and keeps the Sabbath, one and keeps the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he was abducted on Tuesday he makes the Sabbath (great was his power) [profane]. At the second period he makes the Sabbath (if not to wonder) [only the eighth]. Therefore he should worry about all days, as by the following: If he preliminarily married a woman in Elam. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he worries about all women. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not worry about all women. There he has a fix, he may marry a convert, he may marry a freedwoman. Here what do you have? There, they are saying, he worries about all days and works for the necessities of life.

An adult who was taken captive among Gentiles. Rav and Samuel, one said, he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, but the other said, he keeps the Sabbath and counts six. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, five and keeps the Sabbath, four and keeps the Sabbath, three and keeps the Sabbath, two and keeps the Sabbath, one and keeps the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he was abducted on Tuesday he makes the Sabbath (great was his power) [profane]. At the second period he makes the Sabbath (if not to wonder) [only the eighth]. Therefore he should worry about all days, as by the following: If he preliminarily married a woman in Elam. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he worries about all women. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not worry about all women. There he has a fix, he may marry a convert, he may marry a freedwoman. Here what do you have? There, they are saying, he worries about all days and works for the necessities of life.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that he did not concede to him. (It was) [Now] Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to] him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated, “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that he did not concede to him. (It was) [Now] Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to] him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated, “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him.

Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. Therefore, in the case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work even Rebbi Eliezer should agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he is liable only once. But then Rebbi Aqiba should have objected, is there not the case of intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work, where there are many ramifications or many purification sacrifices and you are instructing that he is liable only once! Since he did not object in this way it implies that one case is like the other case.

Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding works. Can anybody become liable intentionally? You superimpose the error regarding works over the intent regarding the Sabbath. Similarly, in case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work you superimpose the error regarding the Sabbath over the intent regarding works to hold him liable for each single occurrence. Does Rebbi Eliezer not accept one, to obligate for each one separately? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: An adult who was abducted among Gentiles is liable for each single one.

One understands Sabbath since weekdays come in the meantime. What may you say about the menstruating woman? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, explain it about an underage menstruating woman where days of purity came in the meantime. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, so did he ask him: If he came to one menstruating woman five times in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one? He answered him, he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is [not] so. Rebbi Mana asked the following: Did not Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once? Then here also he should be liable only once. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is not so. Like the rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nisa: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, and all that is derived from it as all practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish worked on this Chapter for three and one half years. They produced 39 derivatives for each single one. Where they found a way to include it they included it. Where they did not find a way to include it they classified it as “who hits with a hammer.”

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

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

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

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” And (did we not state) [was it not stated], in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose (in the name of Rebbi Ila) [ben Rebbi Abun]: Grinding as a category was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi (Yose) [Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. (It was stated.) Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” And (did we not state) [was it not stated], in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose (in the name of Rebbi Ila) [ben Rebbi Abun]: Grinding as a category was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi (Yose) [Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. (It was stated.) Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

3. One who catches a purple snail and crushes it. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable twice. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable only once. He who says twice, one because of catching and one because of depriving of life. But he who says once, this is because of depriving of life. Does he not have catching? It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: The Holy One, praise to Him, created for Moses in the desert a kind of pure animal. After the work of the Tabernacle had been finished it was hidden. Rebbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a unicorn. It is preferable to the Eternal to a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves. It is written, it sprouts a horn.

“Who slaughters it.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no slaughter here; slaughter is a derivative of wounding. And why was it (not) stated with it? Only because we stated the proceedings of a meal it was stated with it.

“And who tears down,” but only for a need. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who blows a glass vessel is liable because of building. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There are things which are close but far away; and there are things which are far away but close. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form, all are because of building. He who selects, who filters, and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable. And why was handing over not stated with them? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: In addition, there is handing over. And why was it not stated with them? All categories of work involve one, and this one two. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.

“And who tears down,” but only for a need. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who blows a glass vessel is liable because of building. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There are things which are close but far away; and there are things which are far away but close. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form, all are because of building. He who selects, who filters, and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable. And why was handing over not stated with them? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: In addition, there is handing over. And why was it not stated with them? All categories of work involve one, and this one two. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.

“And who tears down,” but only for a need. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who blows a glass vessel is liable because of building. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There are things which are close but far away; and there are things which are far away but close. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form, all are because of building. He who selects, who filters, and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable. And why was handing over not stated with them? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: In addition, there is handing over. And why was it not stated with them? All categories of work involve one, and this one two. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.

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

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

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

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

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

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

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

HALAKHAH: 2. Rav said, here there is no “not liable” but “permitted”. In Rav’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is permitted. In Samuel’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is forbidden. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: on condition that the public domain surround it from all sides. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even from one side. From these carts. Were the carts not higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Maisha: only by two persons. Everywhere you are saying, two persons acting together are not liable, but here you are saying, two persons acting together are liable. There is a difference, because this was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting. What was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting? Two carts one parallel to the other in the public domain. They were handing the planks from one to the other but not throwing. Bar Qappara stated, not to treat the planks with contempt.

Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councillors and one rural, who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councillors went in first and left first. The rural ones went and acquired [knowledge in] Torah. They came and wanted to have precedence. It was asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked it from Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rebbi Benaiah’s house of study: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for clothing, and for livelihood, but not for the Academy. Rebbi Abbin said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? It is more precious than pearls, even than he who enters into the Most Holy [of the Sanctuary.]

Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councillors and one rural, who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councillors went in first and left first. The rural ones went and acquired [knowledge in] Torah. They came and wanted to have precedence. It was asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked it from Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rebbi Benaiah’s house of study: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for clothing, and for livelihood, but not for the Academy. Rebbi Abbin said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? It is more precious than pearls, even than he who enters into the Most Holy [of the Sanctuary.]

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid). “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

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

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

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

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

A curved and open alley. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he puts a beam or a lath there which permits. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, if they wanted to fix it so that each side may use it up to the closing wall, would not two domains use a common domain? But one may use it up to the bend and the other may use it up to the bend. Would not two domains use a domain forbidden to them? Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

A curved and open alley. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he puts a beam or a lath there which permits. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, if they wanted to fix it so that each side may use it up to the closing wall, would not two domains use a common domain? But one may use it up to the bend and the other may use it up to the bend. Would not two domains use a domain forbidden to them? Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

A curved and open alley. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he puts a beam or a lath there which permits. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, if they wanted to fix it so that each side may use it up to the closing wall, would not two domains use a common domain? But one may use it up to the bend and the other may use it up to the bend. Would not two domains use a domain forbidden to them? Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rebbi Isaac’s street. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rebbi Joḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the dwellers in the alley be in error, lest they be intentional. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion did change. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Joḥanan annulled his rights. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rebbi Joḥanan and he carried. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this be so then the haters of Rebbi Joḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rebbi Isaac’s street. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rebbi Joḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the dwellers in the alley be in error, lest they be intentional. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion did change. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Joḥanan annulled his rights. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rebbi Joḥanan and he carried. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this be so then the haters of Rebbi Joḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rebbi Isaac’s street. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rebbi Joḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the dwellers in the alley be in error, lest they be intentional. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion did change. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Joḥanan annulled his rights. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rebbi Joḥanan and he carried. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this be so then the haters of Rebbi Joḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rebbi Isaac’s street. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rebbi Joḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the dwellers in the alley be in error, lest they be intentional. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion did change. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Joḥanan annulled his rights. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rebbi Joḥanan and he carried. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this be so then the haters of Rebbi Joḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted.

Abba bar Huna said, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yannai the son of Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door.

[Rebbi] Aḥa told him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One does not use as support any Mishnah which is not accepted by a group. Rebbi Yose said, it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, even you have to say that it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on either side. (Rav) [Rebbi Mar] Uqba in the name of the rabbis there: They are considered only for the large one but are not considered for the small one.

If a wall on one side is extended and on the other side is shortened. Cahana said, he puts the beam obliquely and uses it obliquely. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Cahana: he puts the beam in the diagonal and uses in the diagonal, but only on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten? (From) Rebbi Yose [said], Rav Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it, on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits]? [Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits].] You conclude to say, what was problematic for the one was obvious for the other [and what was problematic for the other was obvious for the one].

If a wall on one side is extended and on the other side is shortened. Cahana said, he puts the beam obliquely and uses it obliquely. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Cahana: he puts the beam in the diagonal and uses in the diagonal, but only on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten? (From) Rebbi Yose [said], Rav Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it, on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits]? [Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits].] You conclude to say, what was problematic for the one was obvious for the other [and what was problematic for the other was obvious for the one].

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said (in the name of Rebbi), it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi [Yose], what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

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

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.”

May one add superstructure to superstructure? The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implies that one adds superstructure to superstructure, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, I can cause that Bet Maˋon be in the completion of Tiberias. You consider the stadium as if it were full of houses, and the castra are within 70 and remainder of the stadium, and Bet Maˋon is within 70 and remainder of the castra. If one considers the superstructure, the mausoleum of Siricon is not within 70 and remainder, but if one considers the pottery, the mausoleum of Siricon is within 70 and remainder.

May one add superstructure to superstructure? The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implies that one adds superstructure to superstructure, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, I can cause that Bet Maˋon be in the completion of Tiberias. You consider the stadium as if it were full of houses, and the castra are within 70 and remainder of the stadium, and Bet Maˋon is within 70 and remainder of the castra. If one considers the superstructure, the mausoleum of Siricon is not within 70 and remainder, but if one considers the pottery, the mausoleum of Siricon is within 70 and remainder.

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

Rebbi Abba asked, is it the same in the matter of partitions? How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath already had started in prohibition. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath already had started in permission. The strength of Rebbi Abba is from the following: Any Sabbath which started in permission is permitted, in prohibition is prohibited, except one who cedes rights; and he would say, except one who cedes or leases. May one lease rights from the owner of a hostelry? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Jonathan went to Ḥammat Gader. They said, we shall wait until the Elders of the South arrive here. There came Rebbi (Peres) {Nathan] the Southerner; they asked him and he permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, since the Gentile may remove us, we did not do anything. Simeon bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked, then our houses are not ours? Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Boethos: Our houses are not ours, to dwell with us; but they cannot force us to leave; but in a hostelry they remove us.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Therefore straw to be disregarded cannot be disregarded. Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.

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

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

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

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Courtyard and porch combine for four cubits.” He explains it if they are level. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The terrace, the roof, and the courtyard combine for four cubits. Still it is if they are level. You should know that it is so since it was stated: The house, the upper floor, the courtyard, and the porch do not combine. Is that not because they are not level?

Rebbi Simeion ben Laqish in the name of Levi from Sokho: If he pours from vessel to vessel. For if it were otherwise, would Rebbi Jehudah follow his own opinion, as Rebbi Jehudah said, fluid to wet?

“One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside.” There we have stated: “cutting his wart does not push aside;” and here you are saying so? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi (Pedat) [Pedaya]: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi [Yose] said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Levi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben (Yaqim) [Laqish] parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: All who destroy are not liable, except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

“One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside.” There we have stated: “cutting his wart does not push aside;” and here you are saying so? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi (Pedat) [Pedaya]: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi [Yose] said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Levi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben (Yaqim) [Laqish] parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: All who destroy are not liable, except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They were qualified. And why does he treat them as disqualified? Not to slaughter the sacrifice for them. But do they not become sancta only by the slaughter? They should be redeemed and be eaten! Rebbi Ḥanania said, he has profane [bread] before him which he could not eat and you are saying, they should be redeemed and be eaten? Rebbi [Ḥanina] said, they were disqualified. Since they are in a hurry to bring their thanksgiving sacrifices because of the leavened bread with the sacrifice, it is impossible that not the blood of one of them be spilled and it becomes disqualified.

HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together].

HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together].

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

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

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

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.