laqish

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

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

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

In error for heave and intentional for leavened matter, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

HALAKHAH: It is written: It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heavefor the Eternal. I could think that everything is subject to ḥallah; the verse says of the bread but not all bread. If of the bread and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley? From where the other kinds? The verse says the first of your dough, this includes. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael.

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

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir.The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir.The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

“One does not knead mazzah with fluids but one may rub it with them. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua on a ship and kneaded their mazzah with fluids. One may not knead mazzah with boiling water since it parboils, nor with lukewarm water because this makes leavened, but one kneads with cold water.” But did we not state: “All flour offerings are kneaded with lukewarm water and one guards them lest they become leavened”? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There the matter is in the hands of the Cohanim and Cohanim are quick; here it is in the hands of women and women are slow. Then it is a problem about Cohanim themselves, may they knead their mazzah with lukewarm water? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and combs. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between mazzah and mazzah.

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

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

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

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”? He said to him, in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince: With a question mark, “should everybody make himself a scholar?” The Sages themselves did not decree idleness.

It was stated: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights.” There are Tannaim who state: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the incense, and the incense the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the trimming of the lights, so that the libations of the daily sacrifice should be accompanying it.” There is nothing preceding the daily morning sacrifice and nothing later than the daily evening sacrifice except Pesaḥ and incense on Passover Eve. “ From where that nothing should precede the daily morning sacrifice? The verse says, on it ˋolah. And from where that nothing should invalidate the daily evening sacrifice? The verse says, on it šelamim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is not written here he arranges on it ˋolah but he arranges on it the ˋolah, that no elevation offering precede the daily morning sacrifice. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, people lacking expiation bring their expiatory sacrifices after the daily evening sacrifice to enable them to immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening. Rebbi Yudan said, that is, for a rich sufferer from skin disease. But a poor sufferer from skin disease, does he not bring a bird? Said Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon, does he not bring a reparation sacrifice?

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

What results from the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, switching on the other days of the year. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose, on the other days of the year. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is qualified; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is disqualified.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard. Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt, it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard. Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt, it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it belongs to the slaughterer who is one of the group. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to the slaughterer even if he is not of the group, to one of the group even if he is not the slaughterer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it is with him in Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only if it is with him in the Temple courtyard. Each of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: about the two holidays of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forewarning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forewarning in case of a doubt. Everybody agrees if it was lying opposite him in a window in Jerusalem. He who said, a doubt, it is certain. He who said, in the Temple courtyard, it is in Jerusalem.

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

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar 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 Rebbi 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 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.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar 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 Rebbi 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 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.

“Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. You understand from here two things. You understand something which has no fixed number, or that is apt to being changed, only if the act is meritorious. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if the act is meritorious, for example his sister-in-law which is menstruating and he slept with her. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the act is [not] meritorious, for example two spits, one with slaughtered meat, the other with carcass meat, and he intended to eat from one but ate from the other. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.” In this case the act is not meritorious and Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Samuel from Cappadocia said, the next day it is meritorious.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed, also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed, also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody became disinterested in his Pesaḥ, its body is brought as well-being offering. Rebbi Jonah said, qualified well-being offering. Rebbi Yose said, disqualified well-being offering. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the only Pesaḥ which itself is brought as well-being offering is what was lost and found after the owner had fulfilled his obligation. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Samuel said, in any case where they said that a purification sacrifice is allowed to die, a Pesaḥ will be brought as well-being sacrifice. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and disqualified. They explain it, not liable and qualified.

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

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ruling they went after the population of the Land of Israel; for impurity they went after a majority of those entering the Temple courtyard. Does one estimate according to all groups or does one estimate only for the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have to estimate by themselves as long as they are outside. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, for appearance they went from Lavo-Hamat to the Brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, At that time Solomon made the pilgrimage holiday, and all of Israel with him, etc.

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevices, it does not create a grave of the abyss.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? 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.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a tower was standing on the Temple Mount which was called “citadel”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the entire Temple Mount was called citadel, to do everything and to build the citadel which I prepared.

HALAKHAH: A bone with no meat on it, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is forbidden to break it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break it. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow in a marrow-bone. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and profit from the bone? They wanted to say that one may not strip off from the disqualified. Rebbi Eleazar said, and even if you say that one may strip, he explains it following Rebbi Jacob, since Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: why did they say, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Because he who burns causes breaking. Samuel said, one may subscribe to the brain in the head but one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. One may subscribe to the brain in the head because one can take it out through the ear. But one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone since one could only extricate it by breaking. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone, but if he subscribed, he subscribed. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Because of the loss of sancta. In Samuel’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Samuel thinks like Rebbi Jacob, as Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure.

HALAKHAH: A bone with no meat on it, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is forbidden to break it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break it. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow in a marrow-bone. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and profit from the bone? They wanted to say that one may not strip off from the disqualified. Rebbi Eleazar said, and even if you say that one may strip, he explains it following Rebbi Jacob, since Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: why did they say, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Because he who burns causes breaking. Samuel said, one may subscribe to the brain in the head but one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. One may subscribe to the brain in the head because one can take it out through the ear. But one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone since one could only extricate it by breaking. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone, but if he subscribed, he subscribed. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Because of the loss of sancta. In Samuel’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Samuel thinks like Rebbi Jacob, as Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

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

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

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

Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and cut? Not to break under the flesh.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: the tunnels under the Temple were profane, the Temple roofs were sanctified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A Mishnah says so, “there was a fireplace there, and an honorable bathroom. [What was its honor? If one found it locked, one knew that it was occupied, unlocked one knew that it was unoccupied.”] Rebbi Yose said, is excrement impure? Is it not simply cleanliness? But the following is it, “he leaves and goes in the walkway under the Temple, and lights were burning on both sides, until he comes to the place of immersion.” If it were sanctified he would have to go by the shortest way.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is a stipulation of the Court that one dedicate his Pesaḥ and the other his money. He lets him subscribe to his [part] and the money automatically becomes profane. How? It becomes profane and then dedicated again? Or for this purpose it was dedicated from the start? What is the difference between them? If he dedicated 100 mina for his Pesaḥ and used 50 to subscribe. If you are saying that it becomes profane and is dedicated again, the remainder of the monies are profane. If you are saying that for this purpose he dedicated it from the start, the rest of the monies are (profane) [dedicated]. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Think of it if he lets him subscribe gratis. Where do you have “becomes profane and is dedicated again”? The words of the rabbis imply that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. We have stated there: “If he gave her monies, they are permitted; wines, oils, and fine flour, or anything of whose kind one offers on the altar, are forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he lets him subscribe to his Pesaḥ and to his festival offering. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it would be forbidden as harlot’s wages. Explain it if nothing was given into his hand; you should know as it was stated there, “he can bring for him nests for male or female sufferers from genital discharges, nests for childbirth;” not if nothing came into his hands? Here also if nothing came into his hands.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct? And he accepted it from him. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”. Since (breaking the neck) is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke] is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread.] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt, “taking” is mentioned for lulav. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle, so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle.] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct? And he accepted it from him. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”. Since (breaking the neck) is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke] is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread.] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt, “taking” is mentioned for lulav. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle, so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle.] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing.

Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has this objection, from where does Rebbi Simeon derive it? Following that of Rebbi Ismael: With this Aaron shall come into the Sanctuary, what was said in the matter. One separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Also in this case one separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Is that spelled out in the matter? But since the death of Aaron’s sons is mentioned in the matter and they died during the initiation, it is as if the matter was mentioned. Does not in the end Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish understand it from the same verse? But he is like a person who hears a statement and questions it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: the glory of the Eternal was dwelling on Mount Sinai. Just as Moses did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was sanctified in the cloud all of seven days, so Aaron did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was inducted by the anointing oil all of seven days.

Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has this objection, from where does Rebbi Simeon derive it? Following that of Rebbi Ismael: With this Aaron shall come into the Sanctuary, what was said in the matter. One separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Also in this case one separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Is that spelled out in the matter? But since the death of Aaron’s sons is mentioned in the matter and they died during the initiation, it is as if the matter was mentioned. Does not in the end Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish understand it from the same verse? But he is like a person who hears a statement and questions it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: the glory of the Eternal was dwelling on Mount Sinai. Just as Moses did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was sanctified in the cloud all of seven days, so Aaron did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was inducted by the anointing oil all of seven days.

Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has this objection, from where does Rebbi Simeon derive it? Following that of Rebbi Ismael: With this Aaron shall come into the Sanctuary, what was said in the matter. One separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Also in this case one separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Is that spelled out in the matter? But since the death of Aaron’s sons is mentioned in the matter and they died during the initiation, it is as if the matter was mentioned. Does not in the end Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish understand it from the same verse? But he is like a person who hears a statement and questions it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: the glory of the Eternal was dwelling on Mount Sinai. Just as Moses did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was sanctified in the cloud all of seven days, so Aaron did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was inducted by the anointing oil all of seven days.

From where the dismantlings? Rebbi Zeˋira said, it was on the day that Moses stopped erecting the Dwelling, on the day the erections stopped. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, as he did on that day, did the Eternal command. Was this not already stated? One in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , and one in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

From where the dismantlings? Rebbi Zeˋira said, it was on the day that Moses stopped erecting the Dwelling, on the day the erections stopped. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, as he did on that day, did the Eternal command. Was this not already stated? One in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , and one in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

A non-Cohen who removed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, to make a procession on the occasion. Rebbi said, could not the Cohen who was removing the ashes from the interior altar himself clean the candelabra? But to make a procession on the occasion. There, we have stated: “He deposits the flask on the second step and leaves;” “he takes the flask from the second step and leaves.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, why does he enter twice for incense? Only to make a procession on the occasion. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is a biblical command: in the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lights he shall burn the incense. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He could enter to clean and to burn incense.

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

It is written: And these are their numbers: gold basins, Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said, places where the blood of the lamb was collected. Silver basins 1’000, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, places where the blood of the bull was collected. Knives 29, Rebbi Simon said, these are the knives, as we have stated there, “it was called the place of knives since there they hid the knives.”

“also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”, “the Bet there” by ’’from the Bet there”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph.

If he slaughtered and died. May the other enter with his blood. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, with a bull, but not with its blood. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both are saying, even with the blood. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies even with the blood. For Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , even with the blood. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, if he took a fistful and then died, may one enter with his fistful? Why does he question his fistful? For it is written, his fistful, but here it is not written “his blood”. It is obvious for him, even with the blood.

Parwayim gold. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, red, it is like ox blood, but some are saying, gold which produces fruits. As we have stated there, “a golden vine was standing at the door of the inner hall.” Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac said, at the time when Solomon built the Temple, he formed all kinds of trees in it and at the time when those outside where bearing fruit, those inside where bearing fruit. That is what is written, blooming the blossom and jubilate, also enjoying and singing, etc. When did they dry up? Rebbi Isaac Ḥinena bar Isaac said, when Manasse put up at statue in the Temple they dried up, as it is written, and the flower of the Lebanon is wilted.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: “If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: “If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: “If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: “If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them.

There, we have stated: “One skips in prophets; one does not skip in the Torah.” “One skips in prophets,” but one does not skip from one prophet to another, except that one is permitted to skip between the Twelve Prophets. “One does not skip in the Torah.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because one does not scroll the book of the Torah in public. Rebbi Yose asked, think of it, if it was a small paragraph? But so that Israel should hear the Torah in due order. But did we not state: “he reads after the death and but on the tenth day”? There is a difference since this is the order of the day. You should know this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one never recites from memory but here he recites. Rebbi Yose ordered Bar Ulla, the beadle of the synagogue of the Babylonians: If there is one Torah, scroll it behind a curtain. If there are two, take away one and bring the other.

There, we have stated: “One skips in prophets; one does not skip in the Torah.” “One skips in prophets,” but one does not skip from one prophet to another, except that one is permitted to skip between the Twelve Prophets. “One does not skip in the Torah.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because one does not scroll the book of the Torah in public. Rebbi Yose asked, think of it, if it was a small paragraph? But so that Israel should hear the Torah in due order. But did we not state: “he reads after the death and but on the tenth day”? There is a difference since this is the order of the day. You should know this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one never recites from memory but here he recites. Rebbi Yose ordered Bar Ulla, the beadle of the synagogue of the Babylonians: If there is one Torah, scroll it behind a curtain. If there are two, take away one and bring the other.

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

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

What text implies this? “For a grain stack under which gleanings were not collected, all ears that touch the ground are for the poor.” Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai. Rebbi Yose said to him: We understand that according to everybody, this is a fine. Following the House of Hillel, the poor give tithes and eat.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects, and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows. He explains it for elevation offerings. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says. Does he not bring libations with it? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects, and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows. He explains it for elevation offerings. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says. Does he not bring libations with it? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, at the start one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects, and at the end one accepts from them definite objects but not non-definite objects. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end one accepts from them neither definite objects nor non-definite objects. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One does not accept from them voluntary gifts for Temple property for the upkeep of the Temple.” He explains it, both at the start and at the end, if it is for non-definite objects. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Everybody agrees that they make vows and are objects of vows. He explains it for elevation offerings. One understands that he makes a vow to bring an elevation offering. Can he be the object of a vow for an elevation offering? No, if an Israel says, I undertake to bring an elevation offering, when a Gentile hears him and says, I am undertaking what he says. Does he not bring libations with it? Is not the excess money given for libations used for vessels of Service? Then it turns out that he brought {money for} a definite object! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected, did we not state that they may offer their value? Are offerings of one’s value not for the upkeep of the Temple? It is as you are saying there, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for the upkeep of the Temple; so here you are saying, his intent was for Heaven; automatically it will be used for vessels of Service. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. Rebbi Ḥilkiah said, Rebbi Simon asked: Does this imply that one does not accept from them for an aqueduct, or the city walls, or its towers, because of you have no part, nor rightful claim, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.

Somebody put aside his sheqel and it was lost. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is responsible for its alienation until he delivers to the Temple trustee. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Temple property is Heaven’s at any place where it may be. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim..” Still this is because of a regulation oath.

Somebody put aside his sheqel and it was lost. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is responsible for its alienation until he delivers to the Temple trustee. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Temple property is Heaven’s at any place where it may be. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim..” Still this is because of a regulation oath.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

It is written: This they shall give, everybody who violated the Commandments. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, because they sinned in the middle of the day they shall give half a sheqel; but the other said, because they sinned in the sixth hour they shall give half a sheqel; which is worth six grams. Rebbi Joshua the son of Rebbi Neḥemiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Because they transgressed the Ten Commandments, each of them shall give ten gerah. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver; each of them shall redeem his firstborn with twenty pieces of silver. Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Levi: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver and each of them received a minted coin, each of them shall give a minted coin as his sheqel.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua: Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird. And here, he says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “The Ark was deported with them to Babylon. What is the reason? There will not remain a word. Word refers only to what contains the Words. And so it says, at the turn of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon with the desirable vessels of the Eternal’s House. What are the desirables of the Eternal’s House? This is the Ark. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, at its place it was hidden. That is what is written, the poles were long; the tips of the poles were seen in the Sanctuary, in front of the Hall, but were not seen outside,<and were there until this day.> It is written, were seen, and you are saying, but were not seen. They protrude and stick out like a woman’s breasts.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish says, two arks were travelling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written: Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp. The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god? A word which shows that they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish. Saul said to Aḥiya: present God’s Ark. But was the Ark not at Qiryat Ye`arim? What do the rabbis do with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem’ Another verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish: The Ark, Israel, and Jehudah, dwell in huts. Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish says, two arks were travelling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written: Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp. The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god? A word which shows that they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish. Saul said to Aḥiya: present God’s Ark. But was the Ark not at Qiryat Ye`arim? What do the rabbis do with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem’ Another verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish: The Ark, Israel, and Jehudah, dwell in huts. Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish says, two arks were travelling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written: Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp. The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god? A word which shows that they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish. Saul said to Aḥiya: present God’s Ark. But was the Ark not at Qiryat Ye`arim? What do the rabbis do with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem’ Another verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish: The Ark, Israel, and Jehudah, dwell in huts. Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Ark was made using a cubit of five hand-breadths. Who stated “a cubit of five hand-breadths”? This is Rebbi Jehudah. As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, the builders’ cubit was of six hand-breadths, but that of vessels five hand-breadths.” And the Ark is a vessel. According to Rebbi Jehudah who says that the Ark was made with a cubit of five hand-breadths, the length of the Ark was twelve and one half cubits, as it is written: Its length two cubits and a half. Each cubit was five and half a cubit two and one half. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones, as it is written: Which you broke and put into the Ark. Each of the tablets was six hand-breadths in length and three in width. Put the width of the tablets in the length of the Ark, there remains there half a handbreadth. One finger’s thickness for the wall on either side. The width of the Ark was seven and a half hand-breadths, as it is written, Its width a cubit and half a cubit. A cubit five and half a cubit two and a half. Four tablets were in it, two whole ones and two broken ones, as it is written: Which you broke and put into the Ark.. Each of the tablets was six hand-breadths in length and three in width. Put the lengths of the tablets in the width of the Ark, there was one and a half hand-breadths left. One finger’s thickness for the wall on either side and on each side half a hand-breadth to have a handle.

How did Beṣalel make the Ark? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he made three boxes, two of gold and one of wood. He put (the one of wood inside one of gold and) one of gold inside the one of wood, [and the one of wood inside the other one of gold] and covered it, as is written: You shall cover it with pure gold inside and out. Why does the verse say, you shall cover it? To include the upper rim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he made one box and gilded it, as is written: You shall cover it with pure gold inside and out. Why does the verse say, you shall cover it? Rebbi Phineas said, also between the planks.

How were the tablets written? Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel says, five on one tablet each. But the rabbis say, ten on each tablet, as it is written: He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words, ten on each tablet. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, twenty on each tablet, as it is written: He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words, twenty on each tablet. Rebbi Simai says, forty on each tablet, as it is written, on each side they were written, a square. Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, says: Between every two commandments, the details and the letters [of the Torah] were written. Filled with tarsis, like the Great Sea. When Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had occasion to discuss this verse, he said, Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, did teach us correctly. Just as in the sea there are small waves between a large wave and the next, so between any two commandments there are the details and the letters of the Torah.