m

In the first case, you say “the roses should be taken out”, in the second case “all is subject to removal”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is from two [different] Tannaïm. Rebbi Yose said, I can explain those roses by two conditions: “If new roses are preserved in old oil”, Sabbatical roses preserved in oil of the sixth year; “old in new”, Sabbatical roses preserved in eighth year’s [oil].

Our Mishnah is about large vessels, but with small vessels one may use a ruse and immerse them, as Rebbi Hoshaia had stated: “A person may fill an impure vessel from the cistern as a ruse and immerse it.” Also, we have stated: “If his pail or garment fell into the cistern, one may use this as a ruse and immerse them.” Two Amoraïm, one says [one may use a ruse] for vessels impure in original impurity; but the other one says [only] for vessels impure in derivative impurity. The one who said in derivative impurity objected to the one who said in original impurity: Even on weekdays, would it not need sundown? He said to him, if he wants to use them in purity for profane food.

“When does one start to give heave from olives? Some Tannaїm state, when they have been ground, and some Tannaїm state, when they are being weighted. It is clear following him who says when they are being weighted. For him who says when they have been ground, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof? This one is for wine, the other one for oil. Is not wine under the same rules as oil? What would be the difference between wine and oil? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not frequently impure. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, both are frequently impure but impurity is found with wine more often than with oil.

“When does one start to give heave from olives? Some Tannaїm state, when they have been ground, and some Tannaїm state, when they are being weighted. It is clear following him who says when they are being weighted. For him who says when they have been ground, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, one makes the vat impure the moment the press men went over it warp and woof? This one is for wine, the other one for oil. Is not wine under the same rules as oil? What would be the difference between wine and oil? Wine is frequently impure, oil is not frequently impure. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, both are frequently impure but impurity is found with wine more often than with oil.

They stated before Rebbi Abbahu: “Heave does not interfere with First Fruits.” He said to them, this is from Abba Palaemon. Rebbi Yose asked, which [statement of] Abba Palaemon? Rebbi Mana said to him, I heard my father stating: “First fruits in his right hand, heave in his left hand.” Some Tannaїm state, “he transgresses,”, some Tannaїm state, “he does not transgress.” He who says he transgresses, the rabbis; he who says he does not transgress, Abba Palaemon.

They stated before Rebbi Abbahu: “Heave does not interfere with First Fruits.” He said to them, this is from Abba Palaemon. Rebbi Yose asked, which [statement of] Abba Palaemon? Rebbi Mana said to him, I heard my father stating: “First fruits in his right hand, heave in his left hand.” Some Tannaїm state, “he transgresses,”, some Tannaїm state, “he does not transgress.” He who says he transgresses, the rabbis; he who says he does not transgress, Abba Palaemon.

Is Rebbi Eliezer stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient in this case? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is [a disagreement of] Tannaїm: “You must say that if it is known, it cannot be lifted, if it is not known it may be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether it is known or unknown, it cannot be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known, it cannot be lifted; if it is unknown, it can be lifted.”

“ A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids.

“ A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ezra objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases, there it is one case.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.

A flask in its casing is permitted; covered but not stoppered it is forbidden. Stoppered but not covered, if the stopper appeared on the outside it is permitted. Two Amoraïm, one said if it can be taken up by its stopper, and the other said, so that the head of the weaver’s shuttle could not enter. Rebbi Abba said, he who wants to do it right, stoppers and covers it.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon both said the same thing. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.” Could one not burn the two together? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah, coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua! He said to him, these are Tannaïm. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

“ One does not transgress ‘do not muzzle’ while softening legumes or fenugreek, but it is forbidden because of the bad impression.” Some Tannaїm state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” But some Tannaїm state: “Threshing which is not permitted to you.”

“ One does not transgress ‘do not muzzle’ while softening legumes or fenugreek, but it is forbidden because of the bad impression.” Some Tannaїm state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” But some Tannaїm state: “Threshing which is not permitted to you.”

This all is if the outer skin does not impart taste. But if it does, there are Tannaïm who state: “Threshing which is permitted to you.” The Mishnah there implies also threshing which is not permitted to you, since we have stated: “He hangs baskets over the neck of the animal.”

HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to another person, here take this as for twenty figs that I shall choose, he chooses and eats; for the bunch of grapes that I shall choose, he selects single grape berries and eats; for the pomegranate that I shall choose, he picks single kernels and eats; for the watermelon that I shall choose, he bites off and eats. But if he said, for these twenty figs, for these two bunches, for these two pomegranates, for these two watermelon, he eats as he is used to and he is free since he bought when it was still connected to the ground. If somebody hires a worker to slice figs; if that one told him, on condition that I may eat from the figs, he eats and is free; on condition that I and my son will eat, or that my son may eat in lieu of my wages, he may eat and is free, and his son may eat but is obligated; on condition that I may eat while cutting and after cutting, while cutting he eats and is free, after cutting he eats and is obligated since he does not eat because of the Torah. That is the principle: He who eats because of the Torah is free; if he does not eat because of the Torah he is obligated. If he was working with lĕbāsîm he should not eat benôt ševa‘ and vice-versa. But he may hold back until he reaches the place of good ones and eat there. If somebody switches with another person so that each one eats directly, or each one cuts, or one eats and one cuts, he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who exchanges to eat is obligated, to cut is free.

There, we have stated: “When he is working on figs he should not eat grapes, on grapes he should not eat figs.” On that, we stated: If he is working on one branch, he should not eat from another branch. Also, we have stated: “When he is working with lĕbāsîm he should not eat benôt ševa‘ and vice-versa.” This is needed, even if both are on the same branch.

It was stated: A person may use a trick so his workers will eat ten and cut one. Some Tannaïm stated: That they will cut ten and eat one. We understand “that they will eat ten and cut one.” But “that they will cut ten and eat one”? Rebbi Abin said, that you should not say it is as if done after the end of their work, and it should be obligated.

Some Tannaїm state: Because it is not proper for a learned person to eat in public. As for example, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon who was eating in public and was seen by Rebbi Meїr who asked him, are you eating in public? He effaced himself.

Our Mishnah follows the House of Shammai who say, all has the status of inside. It was stated: If he turned the crown towards the inside, all is counted as inside. The earlier Tannaїm follow the House of Shammai.13

In addition, it was stated: “He should not take out.” If he transgressed and took out? There are Tannaїm who state “he is guilty” and there are Tannaïm who state “he is permitted.” Could he who says “it is forbidden” permit? Could he who says “guilty”, declare free from punishment? It is clear that it should not be: “permitted”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds that he is guilty.

In addition, it was stated: “He should not take out.” If he transgressed and took out? There are Tannaїm who state “he is guilty” and there are Tannaïm who state “he is permitted.” Could he who says “it is forbidden” permit? Could he who says “guilty”, declare free from punishment? It is clear that it should not be: “permitted”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds that he is guilty.

Palm-leaf baskets of dates, plates of dates became profane. Some Tannaїm state that boxes of dates did become, some Tannaïm state that they did not become. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said they did become, when they were pressed. He who said they did not become, [meant] when not pressed.

Palm-leaf baskets of dates, plates of dates became profane. Some Tannaїm state that boxes of dates did become, some Tannaïm state that they did not become. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said they did become, when they were pressed. He who said they did not become, [meant] when not pressed.

Rebbi Immi said, Kama came before Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They said to him, go and pay according to those Tannaїm: “One redeems Second Tithe when it is cheap, not when it is expensive; at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.” So far for large quantities, what about small ones? Even so, at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.

Rebbi Jonah said, this means that if his ṭevel was burned he cannot make the declaration. Some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the Torah prevent him; some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the paragraph prevent him. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rebbi Zeïra, even if he put on head phylacteries before phylacteries on his arm? He said to him, that is also what I am thinking.

Rebbi Jonah said, this means that if his ṭevel was burned he cannot make the declaration. Some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the Torah prevent him; some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the paragraph prevent him. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rebbi Zeïra, even if he put on head phylacteries before phylacteries on his arm? He said to him, that is also what I am thinking.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if they were biting. There are Tannaїm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven, and there are Tannaїm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one follows Ḥilfai: If they bite in both places they are combined together, if they do not bite in both places they are not combined together. The Mishnah applies, e. g., to Babylonian bread.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if they were biting. There are Tannaїm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven, and there are Tannaїm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one follows Ḥilfai: If they bite in both places they are combined together, if they do not bite in both places they are not combined together. The Mishnah applies, e. g., to Babylonian bread.

HALAKHAH: “He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order.” He destroyed himself by eating and exposed himself to punishment; he put others in order since they eat and unload [their sin] on him. Some Tannaїm state: He put himself in order and destroyed others. He put himself in order since anyhow he ate. But he destroyed others since they tend to say it is free when it is obligated.

Was is left? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaїm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting, exempt when mixed.

“It turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.” Some Tannaїm state: “The leniency becomes a severity”. He who says the severity becomes a leniency, [refers to] Rebbi Aqiba; he who says the leniency becomes a severity, [refers to] the rabbis.

Some Tannaïm state: The Jordan is part of the Land of Israel. Some state, the Jordan is outside the Land. Some state, the Jordan is a boundary by itself. He who says the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel: (Deut. 3:17) “The prairie, the Jordan, and the border.” He who says the Jordan is outside the Land: (Jos. 18:20): “The Jordan shall form its border Eastward.” He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. “If the Jordan took from one place and gave to another, what it took, it took, and what it gave, it gave.” What are we dealing with? If it was from the Land of Israel and became Syria, it already is under the presumptive obligation of tithes and Sabbatical! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, for claims of possession, removals, and animal tithe. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only if it removed earth.

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden, so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden, so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.

HALAKHAH: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.” Some Tannaїm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaїm state: What envelopes the fruit. He who says what envelopes the fruit, understands shells and pits. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits. From where pits? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.” Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it.

HALAKHAH: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.” Some Tannaїm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaїm state: What envelopes the fruit. He who says what envelopes the fruit, understands shells and pits. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits. From where pits? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.” Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it.

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

Rebbi Ḥizqia, Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu, in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: For an Elder four cubits; once he passed one sits down. The High Priest, from the moment one sees him until he disappears from view. What is the reason? (Ex. 33:8) “It was, when Moses went to the tent, the entire people rose, etc.” Two Amoraïm, one as praise and one as shame. The one who says, as praise: To see the just person and acquire merit. The one who says, as shame: Look at his thighs, look at his feet, he eats from the Jews, he drinks from the Jews, all he has is from the Jews.

Rebbi Mana made light of those ordained for money. Rebbi Ammi read for them (Ex. 20:19): “Do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” Rebbi Yoshia said, their prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Ashian said, if somebody is ordained for money, one does not get up before him and one does not address him as Rebbi; his prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis were sitting together when a person ordained for money was passing by. One of the rabbis said to Rebbi Zeïra, let us behave like Tannaïm and not get up before him.

Some Tannaïm switch statements to combine gift with gift.

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

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

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

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

A semi-convert and a semi-converted slave as well as an apostate acting in public are like Gentiles in every respect. There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine, and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission, but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission.

A semi-convert and a semi-converted slave as well as an apostate acting in public are like Gentiles in every respect. There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine, and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission, but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating. The paradigm for all cases is: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.

Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates the year because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate the year because of impurity. He who says, one does not intercalate, how does he uphold: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written? They intercalated in Nisan but only Adar can be intercalated. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Yebusite under the altar.

Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates the year because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate the year because of impurity. He who says, one does not intercalate, how does he uphold: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written? They intercalated in Nisan but only Adar can be intercalated. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Yebusite under the altar.

If the Court saw the killer; even if they said, if we saw him we would not recognize him, they would not break the neck, for it is written, our eyes did not see in any way, and they did see. And if the court saw the killer, some Tannaïm state: two of them become witnesses and testify before the rest of them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all are witnesses and have to go and testify before another place. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

If the Court saw the killer; even if they said, if we saw him we would not recognize him, they would not break the neck, for it is written, our eyes did not see in any way, and they did see. And if the court saw the killer, some Tannaïm state: two of them become witnesses and testify before the rest of them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all are witnesses and have to go and testify before another place. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

They wanted to excommunicate Rebbi Eliezer. They said, who will go and inform him? Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall go and inform him. He went to him and said to him, my teacher, my teacher, your colleagues are excommunicating you. He took him outside, saying: Carob tree, carob tree, if practice has to follow their words, be uprooted. It was not uprooted. If practice has to follow my words, be uprooted. It was uprooted. If practice has to follow their words, turn back. It did not turn back. If practice has to follow my words, turn back. It turned back. All these extraordinary happenings and practice do not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥanina said, when it was given, it also was given to follow the majority opinion. [Did Rebbi Eliezer not know that practice has to follow the majority opinion?] He was offended only because they burned his food prepared in purity in his presence. There we have stated: “If it was cut into strips and sand was placed between any two strips, Rebbi Eliezer declares pure but the Sages declare impure. This is the Ḥakhinai oven.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, a big itching was happening on that day: Everything on which Rebbi Eliezer gazed was burned. Not only that, but a grain of wheat might have been half burned and half not burned, and the walls of the house of assembly were weakened. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if colleagues are fighting, what does this concern you? There came an unembodied voice and said, practice follows My son Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, it is not in Heaven. Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi: If a person would say to me, that is how Rebbi Eliezer stated, I am stating following his words since the Tannaïm switch. Once he was walking in public and he saw a woman when sweeping her house throwing it out, it fell on his head. He said, it seems that today my colleagues are befriending me, for it is written: He lifts the downtrodden from the dung heap.

“Who is his teacher? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” What means, who explained a Mishnah to him? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off {his shoes} for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “There are two keys. For one he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.” What means “for one he has to go down to his arm-pit”? He had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened.

What if there is a co-wife? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Avina: One has stated there, “if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives should be freed. But it must follow Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah without being admitted to levirate. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rebbi Phineas said to Rebbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sistersshould not be freed! But we have stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaïm interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were not freed.

If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked Rebbi Mana: What is the etymology of “mĕlōg slaves”? He said to him, as you say: strip off, strip off!

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

It is written: “The spirit of the Eternal started to ring in him in the encampment of Dan, between Ṣor‘a and Eshtaol.” Two Amoraïm. One said, when the holy spirit was resting on him, his steps were as from Ṣor‘a to Eshtaol. The other said, when the holy spirit was resting on him, his hairs were tolling like a bell and their sound went as from Ṣor‘a to Eshtaol. “The Eternal blessed him”. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose: That his sex life was that of anybody. “I shall revenge one revenge of my two eyes from the Philistines.” Rebbi Aḥa said, he said before Him: Master of the Universe! Give me the reward of one of my eyes in this world and the reward of the other eye be prepared for me in the World to Come. One verse says: “He judged Israel for forty years.” And another verse says: “He had judged Israel for twenty years.” Rebbi Aḥa said, this teaches that the Philistines were afraid of him twenty years after his death as they were afraid of him during his lifetime.

It is written: “And David sang this elegy”, etc., “and said: To teach the people of Judah archery.” Is it reasonable that he had to teach the people of Judah, who was he? But David said, when the just have disappeared, the haters come and attack Israel. “Is that not written in the book Yashar?” Two Amoraïm. One says, that is the book of Genesis. But the other said, that is the fifth of Numbers. The one who said, this is the book of Genesis, is understandable. But the one who said, that is the fifth of Numbers, what war is reported there? “The Children of Israel travelled from the springs of Bene-Ya‘aqon to Mosera; there Aaron died.” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the Cohen ascended Mount Hor and died there.” But when Aaron died and the clouds of glory disappeared, the Canaanites desired to attack Israel. That is what is written: “The Canaanite, the king of Arad, dweller in the Southland, heard that Israel came by the way of the scouts.” What is “the way of the scouts”? He heard that Aaron died, the great scout, who did scout the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and travelled eight stations backward. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed eight families from them. They also killed four of their families. That is what is written: “The Amramite, the Yiṣharite, the Ḥebronite, the Uzielite.” When were they re-established? In David’s time. That is what is written: “In his days, the just will blossom”. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not perform kindness for that just man. They went and organized a eulogy and performed kindness for that just man. The verse considers it as if he died and was buried there where they performed kindness for that just man.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “Then he starts writing the scroll,” etc. Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, he administers the oath and then he writes; the other one said, he writes and then he administers the oath. They wanted to say that he who says, he administers the oath and then he writes, follows what is written in the verse but he who says, he writes and then he administers the oath, to join the oath to the drinking. There are Tannaїm who state: The conditions and the oaths impede; there are Tannaїm who state: The oaths impede, the conditions do not impede. They wanted to say that he who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, holds that “law” and “teaching” impedes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, does not agree. Certainly he does agree but they are not [written] in order. It turns out that this disagreement is like the previous disagreement. He who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, agrees with him who says, he administers the oath and then he writes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, agrees with him who says, he writes and then he administers the oath.

HALAKHAH: “Then he starts writing the scroll,” etc. Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, he administers the oath and then he writes; the other one said, he writes and then he administers the oath. They wanted to say that he who says, he administers the oath and then he writes, follows what is written in the verse but he who says, he writes and then he administers the oath, to join the oath to the drinking. There are Tannaїm who state: The conditions and the oaths impede; there are Tannaїm who state: The oaths impede, the conditions do not impede. They wanted to say that he who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, holds that “law” and “teaching” impedes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, does not agree. Certainly he does agree but they are not [written] in order. It turns out that this disagreement is like the previous disagreement. He who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, agrees with him who says, he administers the oath and then he writes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, agrees with him who says, he writes and then he administers the oath.

Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for curse and oath? Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for curse and oath? Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for curse and oath? Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for curse and oath? Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

The rabbis say, he writes, erases, gives to drink, and sacrifices [the flour offering]. Rebbi Simeon says, he writes, sacrifices, erases, and gives to drink. Everybody agrees that erasing immediately precedes drinking; only that the rabbis say, he writes, erases, gives to drink, and sacrifices, while Rebbi Simeon says, he writes, sacrifices, erases, and gives to drink. It was stated: “She may always change her mind as long as her offering was not sacrificed. If her offering was sacrificed and she said I do not want to drink’ one makes her gargle and forces her to drink”. Following Rebbi Simeon. But following the rabbis she already drank. We have stated: “She did not finish drinking”. Some Tannaïm state: She did not move from there. He who says, she did not finish drinking, Rebbi Simeon. He who says, she did not move from there, the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “Just as the water checks her out,” etc. We stated “they came, they came”. Some Tannaïm stated “they will come, they will come”. He who said “they came, they came” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “they will come, they will come” is Rebbi Ismael. We stated “she became impure, she became impure”, some Tannaïm stated “and she became impure, and she became impure”. He who said “she became impure, she became impure” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “and she became impure, and she became impure” is Rebbi Ismael.

HALAKHAH: “Just as the water checks her out,” etc. We stated “they came, they came”. Some Tannaïm stated “they will come, they will come”. He who said “they came, they came” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “they will come, they will come” is Rebbi Ismael. We stated “she became impure, she became impure”, some Tannaïm stated “and she became impure, and she became impure”. He who said “she became impure, she became impure” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “and she became impure, and she became impure” is Rebbi Ismael.

We have stated: carders. Some Tannaїm state: spinners. He who said carders, they card wool. He who said spinners, they spin flax.

Cahana said, just as they divide here, so they divide at the beginning of the second book of the Pentateuch. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they divide here, so they divide in the standards. The sons of Leah on one side, the sons of Rachel one on one side, the other one on the other side, and the sons of the handmaidens in the middle. Rebbi Mattania said, the reason of this Tanna is: “Hear me, Jacob my servant, Israel my roofed in.” Just as on the roof the thick part of one [beam] is next to the slim part of the other [beam]. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they are split here, so they are split on the stones of the ephod. “In their fulnesses”, that there should be 25 on one side and 25 on the other side. But they are only 49! Rebbi Joḥanan said, “Benjamin” of “and their births” is plene. Rebbi Judah bar Zabida said, Jehoseph is plene, “He put it up as a testimony in Jehoseph.” But they are only 23 on one side and 27 on the other! Rebbi Joḥanan said, Benjamin was split, Ben on one side, Jamin on the other side. Rebbi Zabida said, this is fine. Does it say “their six names”? No, but, “of their names”, not their entire names! The first were written on the right hand side of the High Priest, to the left of the viewer. The last were written on the left hand side of the High Priest, to the right of the viewer. The first ones were not written in order, for Jehudah is king. The last ones were written in order.

Cahana said, just as they divide here, so they divide at the beginning of the second book of the Pentateuch. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they divide here, so they divide in the standards. The sons of Leah on one side, the sons of Rachel one on one side, the other one on the other side, and the sons of the handmaidens in the middle. Rebbi Mattania said, the reason of this Tanna is: “Hear me, Jacob my servant, Israel my roofed in.” Just as on the roof the thick part of one [beam] is next to the slim part of the other [beam]. Some Tannaïm state: Just as they are split here, so they are split on the stones of the ephod. “In their fulnesses”, that there should be 25 on one side and 25 on the other side. But they are only 49! Rebbi Joḥanan said, “Benjamin” of “and their births” is plene. Rebbi Judah bar Zabida said, Jehoseph is plene, “He put it up as a testimony in Jehoseph.” But they are only 23 on one side and 27 on the other! Rebbi Joḥanan said, Benjamin was split, Ben on one side, Jamin on the other side. Rebbi Zabida said, this is fine. Does it say “their six names”? No, but, “of their names”, not their entire names! The first were written on the right hand side of the High Priest, to the left of the viewer. The last were written on the left hand side of the High Priest, to the right of the viewer. The first ones were not written in order, for Jehudah is king. The last ones were written in order.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “The policemen shall add.” This expression “shall add” only means an addition. Like a man who says, I am adding to the words of my teacher. It was stated: The latter [words] are additions. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaïm. He who said, “I am adding to the words of my teacher,” both the first and the later declarations both he and his teacher said. He who said, the later ones are additions, the first [declarations] both he and his teacher said, but the later ones he said but not his teacher. Rebbi Mana said, there is only one Tanna. The first [declarations] both he and his teacher said, but the later ones he said but not his teacher. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: He hears a sentence from the Cohen and tells it to the people in all languages. But its end disagrees with Rebbi Mana: He adds a final word of his own. If you say so, it does not disagree at all with Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: The first [declarations] both he and his teacher said, but the later ones he said but not his teacher.

If the court saw the killer. Some Tannaïm state, two of them should stand up and testify before them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all should go and testify at another place. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

If the court saw the killer. Some Tannaïm state, two of them should stand up and testify before them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all should go and testify at another place. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. He reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, when he muzzled he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say that because for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Prohibitions without extirpation. Rebbi Judan said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the adolescent girls who can claim a fine” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it according to everybody if it refers to a bastard male who sleeps with a bastard girl.