mana

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what? Is that not a Mishnah, “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There, why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable.

Rebbi Ḥisda in the name of Ashi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable. Rav said, a leather container which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four wide; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: “A candelabra which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and its flower four [wide]; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.” Rebbi Mana said, not only a candelabra but even a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high with a tablet fixed to its head, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.

“One interrupts for the recitation of the Shemaˋ but not for prayer.” Rebbi Aḥa said, the recitation of Shemaˋ is a Biblical obligation; prayer is not a Biblical obligation. Rebbi Abba said, the time for the recitation of the Shemaˋ is fixed, the time for prayer is not fixed. Rebbi Yose said, the recitation of Shemaˋ does not need concentration, prayer needs concentration. Rebbi Mana said: I objected before Rebbi Yose: Even if you say that the recitation of the Shemaˋ does not need concentration, the first three verses need concentration. Since there are so few, one will concentrate.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A tailor should not leave with his needle close to sundown lest he forget and leave,” etc. It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If one of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.”The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle with ear she is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: this is of the practices of obfuscation. Rebbi Yose said, so I asked before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: What means “of the practices of obfuscation? Do we say, at a place where Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it? Or at a place where Jewish bread is not available it would be logical that Gentile bread should be permitted and they obfuscated about it and forbade it? Rebbi Mana said, is there any obfuscation for prohibition? But is bread not like cooking of Gentiles? Are we saying: At a place where no Jewish cooking is available it would be logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted? But it must be the following: At a place where Jewish bread is not available it would be logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it because of the necessities of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Following the words of him who was permitting, but only from the store; but one does not do this.

And about the rules for the land of Gentiles. But did not Rebbi Zeˋira bar Abinna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Joseph ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity of the land of Gentiles and of glass vessels; Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetaḥ decreed impurity of metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed about purity of hands. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi: so practice had been in their hands but they forgot it. The secondary [authorities] came and agreed with the intent of the first ones. To teach you that everything for which the Court made a real effort will in the end be confirmed for them as it was said to Moses on Sinai. This comes as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty matter for you, if it is an empty matter, it is from you since you do not exert yourselves for it. For it is your life. When is it your life? Any time you are exerting yourselves for it.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer. “The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, do you not agree with us that one does not roast meat, or onions, or an egg, unless they be completely roasted when it is still daylight? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, onion, meat, or egg, usually are flipped; here, what can you say? Rebbi Yudan said, if they were roasted like Ben Derosai’s food. They forbade something which usually is flipped unless it be completely roasted as long as it is still day. Rebbi Mana said, it is not reasonable that it should be permitted. For they can say to them, how can you respond to us with something which ordinarily is completely roasted when it still is day about something which ordinarily cannot be completely soaked when it still is day?

And so we see that rabbis are early for intercalations. Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is an obligation to be early, to hasten in commandments.

Mishnah: “If there is a doubt whether it is dark or not dark,” etc. It happened that Rebbi Eliezer was dying on a Friday when it got dark. His son Hyrcanus entered to remove his phylacteries. He told him, my son, you neglected the commandment of the light which is for the Sabbath and for which one incurs extirpation and you came to remove phylacteries which is only rabbinical and is only a [positive] commandment. He left crying and said, woe to me that my father has lost his mind. He told him, your mind is lost, my mind is not lost. When his students saw that he answered him wisely they entered to him and started asking him. He answered on the impure impure and the pure pure; at the end he said “pure” and his soul vanished. They said, it is clear that our teacher is pure. Rebbi Mana said, it still is clear. Rebbi Joshua entered, removed his phylacteries, was embracing him, and kissing him, and crying, and said, my teacher, my teacher, the vow has been dissolved; my teacher, chariot of Israel and its riders.

Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: it only said “on top of it.” Therefore not into it. How far? Ulla said, up three [hand breadths]. Rebbi Mana said, up to where he would make an impression. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he has mastery at a place where the hand has mastery. This comes as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand has mastery but it is forbidden at a place where the hand has no mastery.

If he covered it with ashes and it started burning, what? The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went to his house and instructed: it is permitted. They asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Hoshaia, and Rebbi Ḥanania the colleagues of the rabbis, “it started burning”, in the past. Rebbi Immi passed by; the colleagues were scattered; then they wanted to return to it. Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis said to them, as the case happened so it happened. Rebbi Samuel bar Sisartai said, it is questionable for the future. Rebbi Mana said, I objected before Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaios: If you say for the past, even if he did not cook on it earlier.

It was stated: “A woman should not fill a pot with ˋassisiot and lupines and put them into the oven at the start of the Sabbath, at nightfall. If she did, they are forbidden after the end of the Sabbath until the time they could have been done.” Rebbi Aḥa said: intentionally, following Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said: unintentionally, following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Mana said, what my teacher Rebbi Yose said is correct: “He who is planting on the Sabbath, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. In the Sabbatical year, he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the other way around. If he was planting on the Sabbath he must tear it out whether it was unintentional or intentional; in the Sabbatical, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. Why? Because the profit of the Sabbath [is forbidden] to him.” And here, since you say that after the end of the Sabbath he has to wait until the time it could have been done, he did not gain anything from the Sabbath. What is the reason of the rabbis? People are suspected about the Sabbatical but not about the Sabbath. Another explanation: One counts Sabbaticals, one does not count Sabbaths. What is this about? If somebody planted less than thirty days before the Sabbatical and now it is the Sabbatical, if it is because of suspicion, there is no suspicion; if it is for counting, it is not counted. Less than thirty days before the eighth year and now it is the eighth year, if it is because of suspicion, there is suspicion; if it is because of counting, there is counting. It follows him who says because of suspicion, but for him who says because of counting they fined the unintentional because of the intentional.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “If an oven was heated with straw or stubbles,” etc. Bar Qappara stated: It is even forbidden to lean against it. Rebbi Shammai leaned against the air space of the oven. Rebbi Mana told him, did not Bar Qapprara state: It is even forbidden to lean against it?

Rebbi Mana cursed women who spread out their dresses over the airspace of the oven. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael with difficulty instructed to clean out the oven, laid there three stones and put on them; only that the neighboring women should not know of this. Rebbi Yose said, for the Sabbath you go by the heat; for impurity you go after the closure.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One may not put cold water into a hot water container which was removed,” etc. Rebbi Abba the (son of the) son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they stated this only for a cup, therefore not into itself. Rebbi Mana said, I objected before Rebbi Abba [the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba]: Rebbi Joḥanan could not have stated this on the first part [of the Mishnah] nor on the second part! “In order to heat it”, therefore to make it lukewarm is permitted. There came Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of (Rebbi) [Rav]. If to heat it, it is forbidden, if to make it lukewarm it is permitted.

Everybody agrees that a secondary vessel is permitted. What is the difference between a primary and a secondary vessel? Rebbi Yose said, here the hand rules, there the hand does not rule. Rebbi Jonah said, in neither case does the hand rule. But they forced distance for a primary vessel; they did not force distance for a secondary vessel. (Mishnah: “Into a pan or a pot which was taken off the fire boiling,” etc.) Rebbi Mana said, a pot of rice supports my father, a pot of groats supports my father, for you move them from place to place and they still are boiling hot.

Can one pour in from a stream? Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, the disagreement of Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If he did this on the Sabbath, is he guilty because of cooking? If he did this with meat and milk, is he guilty because of cooking? He said to him, parallel to what Rebbi Zeˋira said, what is certainly a dumpling? Only if fire burned underneath it. So here also, what is certainly a cooked dish? Only if fire burned underneath it.

Rebbi Mana said, earlier we were of the opinion to say, where do they disagree? When it was extinguished, if the rats had dragged the wick away, when it was compressed. But you may even say if the rats had not dragged the wick away, when it was not compressed, if it contained oil.

Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi [Yannai] said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on a holiday one props it up against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Mana said, only if the vessel not touch the body of the egg.

“Which may be sprinkled upon and immersed in place.” There, we have stated: “She may not immerse herself wearing them unless she relaxes them.” And here he says so? Rebbi Mana said, here if they are loose, there if they are tight.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. Samuel said, if it was tied to it from before the Sabbath. Ḥanin from Gophtia said before Samuel, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi does not act like this. He told him, Rav uses kleisterin, as it was stated: rams go out with kleisterin. Rebbi Aḥa bar Papa objected before Rebbi Zeˋira: But was it not stated: a rope tied to a cow may be tied to the feeding trough, the feeding trough may be tied to a cow. One understands a cow’s may be tied to the feeding trough. May from the feeding trough be tied to a cow? Would he not use the animal’s sides on the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, explain it for knots which are not permanent. Rebbi Yose said, is there a difference for sides of an animal whether the knot is permanent or not permanent? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it if he connects rope to rope.

HALAKHAH: “With what may a woman go out,” etc. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, because she loosens them because they separate for her period and she forgets and walks with them for four cubits. Rebbi Mana said, earlier we were saying because she opens what is sewn but we were not saying anything, as Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates one may tear and open but only one may not tie. There, we have stated: “The following separate on a human: threads of wool or of linen and the ribbons on the head of girls.” Samuel said, there is no hair here; in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, but only wool. Therefore hair does not separate in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of the rabbis: One hair separates, two are in doubt, three do not separate.

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: It is forbidden to send jewelry. Rebbi Mana said, they said only to send, therefore to wear it is permitted. It was stated: One may move the shofar to let a child drink, the writing tablet, and the bell, and the mirror, to cover vessels. Rebbi Abun said, a Mishnah says that it is forbidden to wear it, as we have stated: “Anything which one may use on the holiday one may send.” If you say that it is permitted to wear it should be permitted to send. And what is that which was stated: One may move the shofar to let a child drink, [the writing tablet,] and the bell, and the mirror, to cover vessels? If they are called implements. So far gold jewelry. Also even silver jewelry? They said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah forbidden, [and] they said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah permitted. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the beginning and the end. Small girls were growing up in Rebbi Jeremiah’s dwelling. He went and asked Rebbi Zeˋira, who told him: do not forbid and do not permit.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If any of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.” The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle without ear one is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

Rebbi Mana said, I heard the reason from Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? Rebbi Yose said, it is understandable that with a golden tooth which was expensive she should not go out, for if she lost it she would put it back. But what can you say about a replacement tooth? Still she would be embarrassed to tell the carpenter, make me another one. If she lost it she would put it back.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, one goes out with them because they are like a sandal, and one may enter the Temple Court with them. Rebbi Yannai asked, one goes out with them because they are like sandals, and one may enter the Temple Court with them, because they are not sandals? Rebbi (asked) [Mana] said, instead of asking about Samuel he should have asked about the Mishnah, “its supports are impure by stepping on, one may go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them.” Rebbi Mana said, say does its last part not disagree with Samuel? “Its supports are impure by stepping on, one may not go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them. Donkey figures are pure and one may go out with them.” What are pure donkey figures? Rebbi Abbahu said, ὄνος κατʹ ὦμον, arm’s donkey.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, one goes out with them because they are like a sandal, and one may enter the Temple Court with them. Rebbi Yannai asked, one goes out with them because they are like sandals, and one may enter the Temple Court with them, because they are not sandals? Rebbi (asked) [Mana] said, instead of asking about Samuel he should have asked about the Mishnah, “its supports are impure by stepping on, one may go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them.” Rebbi Mana said, say does its last part not disagree with Samuel? “Its supports are impure by stepping on, one may not go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them. Donkey figures are pure and one may go out with them.” What are pure donkey figures? Rebbi Abbahu said, ὄνος κατʹ ὦμον, arm’s donkey.

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

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If one harvested half the volume of a dried fig on this Sabbath, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig on another Sabbath, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Is it possible to say Sabbaths divide, Sabbaths combine? Do not trays divide and trays combine? He answered, I do not know the reason for the tray. Is this not a baraita? If he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Azariah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it by intent. He said to him, is this not an argument a fortiori? Since intent neither divides nor combines, error which does not divide a fortiori does not combine.

Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is not what he said but he harvested half the volume of a dried fig in the morning, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig in the evening, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not address this, he said something similar. If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and half the volume of an olive being oblivious of the Sanctuary but aware of impurity; do the oblivions combine?

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

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity, and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs.

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

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed fish, if for their body he is not liable, but to produce fish sauce he is liable. Rav said, if one compressed pickles, if for their body it is permitted, for their fluid it is forbidden. Preserves both for their body or their fluid is forbidden. Samuel said, both for pickles and for preserves, both for their body or their fluid it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Mana asked him, why? Because one said forbidden and permitted but the other said liable and not liable.

Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath.

He who burns potter’s clay, softens glass, melts pitch, melts מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking. One who roasts, or who fries, who preserves by cooking, or by smoking, all these because of cooking. If somebody cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, what? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias? Two Amoraim, one said, it is forbidden; the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, do not eat from it raw, nor cooked in water. But he who said, it is permitted, but only roasted in fire, its head with its feet and its innards.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

“These measures were said only for those who store them.” Rebbi Mana said, For those who store them in the most minute amount. And we have stated so against Rebbi Simeon: These measures were said only for those who throw them out. Therefore for those who store them in the most minute amount. And we have stated against the rabbis: These measures were said only for those who store them. Therefore for those who throw them out by a quartarius.

“Kohl to apply to one eye.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, because a woman would paint one eye with kohl and appear in public. Rebbi Abun said, even the most dissolute whore would not do this. But a woman one of whose eyes hurts paints the other with kohl and appears in public. Rebbi Mana said, did we state that she hurts? But a woman would paint one eye with kohl, cover the other, and appear in public. You captured my heart with one of your eyes. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Because a woman who is blind in one eye paints the other with kohl and appears in public.

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

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

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if it was broken open. He said to him, but did we not state ‘a basket”; can you say, a basket broken open? What about this? Nothing is moved in the public domain and becomes karmelit except a human. Ḥizqiah said, if he took out a bundle from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was higher than ten [hand-breadths], since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, if he took out a beam from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was in another private domain, since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a stone is in the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is liable. Samuel said, a basket full of produce put into the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is not liable. Do they disagree? Here, if it was turned on its side, there if it was not turned on its side. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if one moved a stone in the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, how do you treat it? As one who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it, or from the public domain to a different public domain? The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If one piles five [hand-breadths] on top of five, how do you treat it? As one who moves from a private domain to karmelit, from karmelit to a private domain, from a private domain to another private domain?

Rav Hamnuna said, on a board outside the ship which is not four wide one may sit and provide for his needs on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he had said an open box it would have been correct. Rebbi Abun said, one who wants to provide for a boat makes outside of three [hand-breadths] a plank which is not four [hand-breadths] wide and one considers it as if partitions rose. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Because any three [hand-breadths] which are close to a partition are as if of the partition. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar commanded Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, who was a mariner, to make for himself a deficient container.

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

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One heals with anything except pagan worship, uncovering nakednesses, and spilling blood. Rebbi Phineas asked: So far if he said, bring me leaves from pagan worship, and he brought him. If he said to him bring me leaves unspecified and he brought him from pagan worship? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Jonah had a fever attack. They brought him from the penis of Dori and he drank. They brought to Rebbi Aḥa and he did not drink. Rebbi Mana said, if my father Rebbi Jonah had known from where it was, he would not have drunk.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, if the Day of Atonement falls to be on the Sabbath one does not blow, if after the Sabbath one does not make havdalah. Why? Following Rebbi Aqiba. But following Rebbi Ismael he makes havdalah since the fats of the Sabbath are brought on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, even according to Rebbi Ismael he should not make havdalah, since one only makes havdalah to permit things which were forbidden to him. If he would burn the fats of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, would that not be permitted? Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah said, he should make havdalah since by it he permits to rinse pickled and parboiled [food]. Rebbi Yose said, he only is permitted to rinse pickled and parboiled [food] from the time of afternoon prayers or later. Could he make havdalah from the time of afternoon prayers or later? As you take it, there is no cup, there is no light, how can he make havdalah? Rebbi Abun said, in prayer.

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

“A spade or a pitchfork to feed a child, a spindle or a spinning top to stick into something.” Rebbi Simon said, Rebbi Abbahu permitted me to apply eye salve on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet: The Mishnah implies this, “a sewing needle to remove a thorn,” since what would be the difference between this and a thorn? Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Mana, may one compound it on a holiday? He told him, it is not food.

HALAKHAH: In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, a stick which he prepared in order to check the olives. How did he know? If it was dirtied by fluid it was proof that the work of loading was completed; otherwise it was proof that the work of loading was not completed. Rebbi Mana said to him, Samuel only stated that he was fishing out olives with it. A stick which one prepared to close the window, should we say that he closes with it if it was tied and hanging, otherwise he may not close with it? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it is prepared even if it is neither tied nor hanging.” Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging? Rebbi Yudan said, since he removed it and took it into his hand it becomes similar to a key.

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

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said, so is the Mishnah: But one may put it in vinegar in his presence. Rav Huna said, they taught only lukewarm water; therefore it is permitted in cold water. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, even in cold water it is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, did they not teach only lukewarm water? (But) {He said to him], did we exert ourselves for nothing

Rebbi Zeˋira asked, what kind of threshold? Like a permitted threshold or a forbidden threshold? Rebbi Zeˋira said, when I was still there it was questionable for me, but when I came here I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a threshold is ten [hand-breadths] high but less than four wide it is permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, look what he is saying! He only said, if it is less than four wide. But if it is four wide it is forbidden. He said to him, is that not the case of a cross-beam? Is it not permitted under a cross-beam? Rebbi Zeˋira said, Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan. Samuel said, under the beam it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Everybody agrees that between laths it is forbidden, and it was stated thus: If an alley is made of laths, if between one and the next are four hand-breadths one carries up to the outer one; otherwise one carries up to the inner one. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Uqba, unless the outer one is wider. But if the outer one was wider one carries up to the outer one.

HALAKHAH: “Wide enough to carry a tile,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, strong even if it is not wide. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, since you are saying that practice follows this one and that one, one may follow this one or that one without worry. Rebbi Mana said, since it was said that practice follows the rabbis, one disregards individuals and acts following the rabbis.

Rebbi Ḥinena did not say so but: Rav went to a certain place; he saw a certain alley whose beam had been removed, and forbade it. Rav Ḥuna said to him, the date palm stands. Rav told him, the eyes of Rav Ḥuna are high, the eyes of Rav are not high; but I am forbidding it for them because of a beam, and the next Sabbath I am permitting it to them because of a lath, that they should know that if the palm tree were removed they would be forbidden to carry. Some want to say, that they should not think following Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.” And here he says so? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Jehudah treated it as a house.

Concerning the Sabbath, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed. From three to four, and from four [hand-breadths] to ten [cubits], it is permitted if what is standing is more than what is torn down, but forbidden if what is torn down is more than what is standing. More than ten, it is forbidden even though what is standing is more than what is torn down. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from three to four.” There is a hole of three and no place of four! Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state: “One surrounds with sticks,” does a stick form a place? He said to him, do not object to me from a breach less than three hand-breadths, since anything less than three is considered closed! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: In any case, since what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They permitted planks for wells only for pilgrims. Rav Abin said, at the time of pilgrimage. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Because of the pilgrims. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, the Mishnah implies that one makes planks for wells in the present time. But did we not state, “one fills from the cistern of the diaspora with a wheel on the Sabbath, from the large cistern, etc.” Why “may one fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday”? But at the time when Israel came from the diaspora and camped at this well, the prophets among them stipulated that that one could fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday. They did not permit all cold wells, only this well at which they camped. As you are saying there, what was permitted was permitted, and here what was permitted was permitted. Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa instructed in Haifa, Rebbi Jeremiah instructed in Ḥelef about planks for wells in the present time.

They wanted to say that Rebbi Meïr would admit to Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Jehudah will not admit to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Meïr will admit to Rebbi Jehudah? Does not Rebbi Meïr have simple poles, and you are saying so? If you are making double columns but no straight poles, he would think, perhaps a partition for the Sabbath is made in this way; he would make it in other places and become liable. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Neither of them yields to the other. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose (about) did not say this, he said something similar. Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Bun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: How far away does a double column have to be so it would not need a straight [plank]? He told him, less than three [hand-breadths] is considered closed, more than six is far away. Therefore we have to consider from three to four. If you would say that Rebbi Meïr yields to Rebbi Jehudah, should he not make a double column far away and not need a simple [plank]? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rebbi Meïr requires simple [planks] only according to Rebbi Jehudah’s method. Rebbi Yose said, even according to his own method, since in any case what is standing is not more than what is breached. Since what is standing should be more than what is breached it needs a simple [plank].

If a courtyard is open into a corral one may carry from the courtyard to the corral but not from the corral to the courtyard. Rebbi Judah from Anthodriya asked, may one carry from one corral to another corral through the courtyard? The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.” And here he says so? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Jehudah treated it as a house.

HALAKHAH: The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.” And here he says so? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Jehudah treated it as a house.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If he deposited it in a tree more than ten hand-breadths high,” etc. It is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. He might transgress the rabbinic prohibition and eat. Then also higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]. Rebbi Mana said, only if the public domain surrounds it on all sides; he says my Sabbath rest shall be below it. It was stated: If he put it in a basket and hung it on a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths high it is not an eruv; below ten hand-breadth it is an eruv but it is forbidden to move it; below three it is permitted. This is difficult. If his eruv is a [valid] eruv one should be permitted to move it. If one is forbidden to move it his eruv should not be a [valid] eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: He might turn it upside down and annul the private domain created by it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a bench in the public domain high ten and wide four [hand-breadths], since one may tilt it and annul the private domain created by it, it implies that his eruv is a [valid] eruv and it is permitted to move it.

“If he put it on top of a stick or a pole as long as it was uprooted and inserted it is an eruv even if 100 cubits high.” Because it was uprooted and inserted; therefore if it was not uprooted and inserted his eruv is not a [valid]eruv. Does this not disagree with Samuel, as Rav Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, explain it if its stem was four [hand-breadths]? Rebbi Mana said, only if a table was put on its top.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “A person may make his eruv conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his ˋeruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. (But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not.) Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented,” etc. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented,” etc. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Rebbi Aḥa said it from study, Rebbi Yose said it from reflection; the four Elders concur with Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah, does practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah? The four Elders concur with Rebbi Eliezer! Since there where his eruv did not enter in force did I not say that he removed his feet from the inhabitants of his town, here where his eruv did enter in force not so much more? If he made an eruv with a loaf on the first [day], he makes the eruv with a loaf on the second, but it must be the same loaf. If he made an eruv with his feet on the first [day], he makes the eruv with his feet on the second. If he made an eruv with his feet, may he make an eruv with a loaf, with a loaf may he not make an eruv with his feet? Since you are saying there, with his feet he may not make an eruv with a loaf, then with (his feet) [with a loaf] may he not make the eruv with his feet? To make it easy for the poor person who has no loaf. Since you are saying there, with his feet he may not make an eruv with a loaf, then with with a loaf may he not make the eruv with his feet? To make it easy for the rich person that he does not have to go and make the eruv with his feet. Since you are saying there, with his feet he may not make an eruv with a loaf, then with a loaf may he not make the eruv with a loaf? Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there, they made him as if going to his town.

Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

“Unless one leaves outside like the town Ḥadašah in Jehudah.” As Senan, Ḥadašah, and Migdal-Gad. “Which has 5 inhabitants,” even men, women, and children. Assi said, but only Israel. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Simeon bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav: If they open into it. Rebbi Mana said, since they open into it they all are made one domain.

Is a city counted in the measure of 2’000? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A city is not counted in the measure of 2’000. Rebbi Eleazar said, a city is counted in the measure of 2’000. In earlier times the people of Tiberias were walking through all its hot springs but the people of its hot springs came only to the cupola. But today for the people of Tiberias and the people of its hot springs it is one city. Rebbi Jeremiah said, “it happened that an old shepherd came and said before Rebbi, I remember the people of Magdala walking up to its hot springs, walking through its hot springs and coming up to the outer courtyard close to the bridge; and Rebbi permitted that the people of Magdala walk up to its hot springs, walking through its hot springs and come up to the outer courtyard up to the bridge. In addition, Rebbi permitted that the people of Gadara descend to their hot springs and return to Gadara but the people of the hot springs may not ascend to Gadara.” Rebbi Mana said, because of the authorities. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this but because we have stated “the people of a large town walk through all of a small town, the people of a small town do not walk through all of a large town.”

How little? Should it come as what Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: real estate cannot be acquired with less than a peruṭa’s worth? The word of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa implies even a walnut, even a date.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: They stated this in commercial practice. Everybody with wine, since he does not care about mixing, it does not need an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other, since he cares about mixing, it needs an eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah refers to the case that all is in one vessel. Rebbi Zeriqan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that they are used to drink οἰνόγαρον. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus says, in every case they are forbidden until they make an eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Ze`ira: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Meïr. Which [statement of] Rebbi Meïr? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Meïr who said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr who said that one may not make an eruv for a person without his knowledge. In the opinion of Rebbi Mana, following Rebbi Ze`ira, in the opinion of Rav following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: They stated this in commercial practice. Everybody with wine, since he does not care about mixing, it does not need an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other, since he cares about mixing, it needs an eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah refers to the case that all is in one vessel. Rebbi Zeriqan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that they are used to drink οἰνόγαρον. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus says, in every case they are forbidden until they make an eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Ze`ira: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Meïr. Which [statement of] Rebbi Meïr? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Meïr who said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr who said that one may not make an eruv for a person without his knowledge. In the opinion of Rebbi Mana, following Rebbi Ze`ira, in the opinion of Rav following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

The following is obvious: If it is ten deep but not four wide one may move and fill. If it was four wide but not ten deep it is obvious that one may move. May one fill? Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, it is forbidden. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Mana: “They told him, because it did not have the measure.” It was neither ten deep nor four wide. But if it had been ten deep but not four wide it would have been forbidden. Even if it is four wide but not ten deep it is permitted. The case happened as it happened.

The following is obvious: If it is ten deep but not four wide one may move and fill. If it was four wide but not ten deep it is obvious that one may move. May one fill? Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, it is forbidden. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Mana: “They told him, because it did not have the measure.” It was neither ten deep nor four wide. But if it had been ten deep but not four wide it would have been forbidden. Even if it is four wide but not ten deep it is permitted. The case happened as it happened.

It was stated: Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia says, if a balcony protrudes over the sea, one opens the floor covering, lowers down, and fills. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Only if the hole is four hand-breadths long, and only if it is four hand-breadths wide, and if the walls are ten hand-breadths high. There they are saying, even if the partitions are not ten hand-breadths high it is made like a funnel. Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Ḥiyya: One is permitted to fill but forbidden to pour out. He said to him, when we will ordain Sages, we shall ordain you with them. Rebbi Mana said, he shouted at him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, did he not say to him that one is permitted to fill, since he fills inside his partition, but forbidden to pour out, for he pours outside of his partition?

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. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Eudaimon in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the case of a baby in danger. His colleague objected to him: If in the case of a baby in danger should he not carry him in his hand? He answered him, if he can bring him in a permitted way.

Rebbi Jehudah says, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, one considers the wall as if hollowed out. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is everybody’s opinion if it is inclined ten hand-breadths for three [cubits]. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is inclined ten hand-breadths for three [cubits], is it not a roof? Where are we? There, where it does not have to come to rest, you say only after it came to rest; here where it is necessary that it come to rest, not so much more? Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, in any case it did not come to rest! He told him, since it is not four wide it is as if it did not come to rest.

“He used to say, a wrench is made by a wrench. How was the first wrench made? It was created.” Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: How do you explain this? From one wrench they learned many wrenches; from one Sabbath prohibition they learned many Sabbath prohibitions.”

Why by candlelight? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because a candle permits checking everywhere. Why in the night? Rebbi Yose said, because checking with a candle is exact only during night time. Rebbi Mana did not say so: And guard this day for your generations as an eternal law, see to it that day and night be guarded. Then should one not start on the Thirteenth that day and night be guarded? He also agrees with the statement of Rebbi Yose. Then should one start in the evening of the Thirteenth? If so, he could even check on the beginning of the month.

Rebbi Yose asked: The courtyards in Jerusalem where one eats the bread of thanksgiving offerings and the wafers of a nazir, do they need checking? Are they not checked anyhow for leftovers? 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 comb. 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 elimination and elimination. Rabbi Gamliel bar Inyany stated before Rebbi Mana: A menstruating woman who interrupts for seven days washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman who immerses herself every day does not wash her hair and comb. He told him, it is necessary for one who watches one day for a day.

“Holes in the house, the upper and the lower ones, and the veranda, and the ditch, and the upper floor, and the roof of the olive press, and the roof of the tower, the storage room of straw, and the cattle stable, and the storage room of wood, and the storage room of provisions, wine storage, and oil storage, and produce storage, do not need checking.” One understands the upper ones. The lower ones? Does this mean that they did not worry about things falling down? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if both were close to the wall, whether higher than ten or lower than ten [hand-breadths]. Did we not state “the ditch”? Does this not mean that they did not worry about things falling down? The toddler is afraid to go there. But should one not be afraid that leavened matter rolled there? Explain it by a ditch which has a rim. “And the roof of the olive press, and the roof of the tower.” That is, if they are three hand-breadths high; but if they are not three hand-breadths high they are like ground. And if they were not used for leavened matter, but if they were used for leavened matter even if it is very high it needs checking. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. Would we say that this papyrus scaffold which is very high should not need checking?

Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Mana, should they not insitute trumpet blowing? If you say so, it would turn out that [they would say, maybe] they blow for the daily sacrifice[, and they would be led astray]. He retorted, but did we not state: “Three to separate people from work, and three to separate between weekday and holiness”? He answered him, there every single Friday they are blowing, one will not err. But here it is once in a long time; if you say so, it would turn out that they would say, maybe they blow for the daily sacrifice, and they would be led astray.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aqiba follows his opinion, since Rebbi Aqiba said, shall be impure, shall make impure by word of the Torah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even though Rebbi Ismael does not accept shall be impure, shall make impure, for foodstuffs, he accepts shall be impure, shall make impure, for implements.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, the second following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you are saying. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose and one should burn. In addition, we understand from the following: we see the rabbis, if a case comes before them, they say, go and suspend. Where do we find that Rebbi Simeon says, one burns? It is what we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon stated this. If you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension, have we not stated: “Suspended (pure) heave is burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, explain it that it is suspended because he does not intend to ask about it. He said to him, so also said Rebbi Yose: All we are occupied with here is with suspended [heave] about which he does not intend to ask; but suspended [heave] about which he intends to ask is pure. It was stated thus: “Suspended heave about which they said, is it pure? It is impure. If he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about it, it is pure.” What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then one cannot infer anything.

And you are saying, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Meïr will not agree? But did we not state: When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure. And if it follows Rebbi Meïr, whether it is a vat which contains enough to lift it or a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure? In addition, from what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication,” nobody says “this is not” unless he agrees with the premise. How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in order to care for the property of Jews; here what do you have? Does the Jew not lose money even here? For he needs to burn wood separately and this separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥanina the executive officer of the Cohanim; and one cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ila, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but the second both following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Yose? He told him, if not following Rebbi Yose, we may say not following Rebbi Meïr since we find that Rebbi Yose is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Meïr is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. I asked him, even in a case where it is suspended by word of the Torah? He told me, if I explain it that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwelling, what do you have in your hand? It was stated: “For Gentiles’ dwelling one suspends, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Rebbi Meïr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, and so it was stated: “Suspended [and] impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Should he not burn in the morning? Explain it that he was lazy and did not burn. You should know that this is so, since it was stated “impure”. Not because he was lazy and did not burn? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the impurity came to it at that moment and one cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ila, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but the second both following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Yose? He told him, if not following Rebbi Yose, we may say not following Rebbi Meïr since we find that Rebbi Yose is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Meïr is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. I asked him, even in a case where it is suspended by word of the Torah? He told me, if I explain it that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwelling, what do you have in your hand? It was stated: “For Gentiles’ dwelling one suspends, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Rebbi Meïr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, and so it was stated: “Suspended [and] impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Should he not burn in the morning? Explain it that he was lazy and did not burn. You should know that this is so, since it was stated “impure”. Not because he was lazy and did not burn? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the impurity came to it at that moment and one cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals. He told him, after it was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

But is it not written: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water. Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass. But is it not written: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana] said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

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 Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either mazzah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either mazzah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either mazzah or leavened; all others cannot be mazzah or leavened but would spoil.

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.”

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac had wine which was getting sour. He added barley to it that it should become vinegar. He asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, you have to eliminate. [Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Kihai {Kirai} had honey adulterated with flour. He asked Rebbi Mana who told him, you have to eliminate. One of the people of [the house of] Rebbi Kirai had leather sacks of oil in the storage room of wheat. He asked the rabbis,who told him, go and clean out from under them. Rebbi Immi instructed about those leather sacks of kutah, one fills them with water for three days [and empties them]every24hours.

HALAKHAH: “And the following are removed on Passover,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, all by the action of water.