mari

And the Saviour appeared in their presence mounted upon the chariot of the Father of the Universe, and He cried out in the language of His Godhead, saying, 'Mari Khar Martath,' whereof the interpretation is, 'Mary, the mother of the Son of God.' Then Mary, who knew the interpretation of the words, said, 'Ḥramboune Kathiathari Miôth,' whereof the interpretation is, 'The Son of the Almighty, and the Master, and my Son.' And He said unto her, 'Hail, My mother. Hail, My holy ark. Hail, thou who hast sustained the life of the whole world. Hail, My holy garment, wherein I arrayed Myself. Hail, My water-pot, which is full of holy water. Hail, My mother, My house, My place of abode. Hail, My mother, My city, My place of refuge. [Hail, thou who hast received in thyself the Seven Aeons in one composition. Hail, thou who art the table which is set in the Paradise of the seventh heaven, the name of which is "Khômthômakh", [that is to say],] the whole of Paradise is glad because of her. I say unto thee, O My mother, "He who loveth thee loveth life." Hail, thou who didst sustain the Life of the Universe in thy womb. O My mother, [go thou] and say unto My brethren [that I have risen from the dead]. Say thou unto them: [I shall] go [unto My Father], Who is your Father, and unto My God and Lord, Who is your Lord. Keep in remembrance all our words which I have spoken unto you. For I will come to you at the hour of dawn to-morrow morning, which is also the hour wherein I am wont to stretch out My right hand of light, when the sun riseth upon the earth, and when also I am wont to shake out My spiritual garments, and to take My seat on the right hand of My Father, and when the dew of the Paradise of the seventh heaven descendeth upon the whole earth, which becometh drunk therewith, and yieldeth the fruits of life. I will come to you at that hour, and I will give unto you My peace which I have received from My holy Father. And He gave it to Me, and I brought it into the world, and I will give it unto you My disciples [and unto] every one who shall believe in My name, and [in the name of] Mary My mother, the Virgin in very truth, My spiritual womb, My treasure of pearl, the ark [of the salvation] of the sons of Adam, who sustained the Body of the Son of God, and the Blood of Him that indeed took away the sin of the world, the light of [our] …

Some men have a tradition that when our Lord broke His body for His disciples in the upper chamber, John the son of Zebedee hid a part of his portion until our Lord rose from the dead. And when our Lord appeared to His disciples and to Thomas with them, He said to Thomas, ‘ Hither with thy finger and lay it on My side, and be not unbelieving, but believing.’ Thomas put his finger near to our Lord’s side, and it rested upon the mark of the spear, and the disciples saw the blood from the marks of the spear and nails. And John took that piece of consecrated bread, and wiped up that blood with it; and the Easterns, Mar Addai and Mar Mari, took that piece, and with it they sanctified this unleavened bread which has been handed down among us. The other disciples did not take any of it, because they said,! We will consecrate for ourselves whenever we wish.’ As for the oil of baptism, some say that it was part of the oil with which they anointed the kings; others say that it was part of the unguent wherewith they embalmed our Lord; and many agree with this (statement). Others again say that when John took that piece of consecrated bread of the Passover in his hand, it burst into flame and burnt in the palm of his hand, and the palm of his hand sweated, and he took that sweat and hid it for the sign of the cross of baptism. This account we have heard by ear from the mouth of a recluse and visitor (περιοδευτής), and we have not received it from Scripture The word Pentecost is interpreted ‘the completion of fifty days.’

These are the twelve who were rejected from among the seventy, as Judas Iscariot was from among the twelve, because they absolutely denied our Lord’s divinity at the instigation of Cerinthus. Of these Luke said, ‘ They went out from us, but they were not of and Paul called them ‘ false apostles and deceitful workers n.’ Simon; Levi; Bar-Kubba; Cleon; Hymenaeus; Candarus; Clithon (?); Demas; Narcissus; Slikis-pus (?); Thaddaeus; Marutha. In their stead there came in these: Luke the physician; Apollos the elect; Ampelius; Urbanus; Stachys; Popillius (or Publius); Aristobulus; Stephen (not the Corinthian); Herodion the son of Narcissus; Olympas; Mark the Evangelist; Addai; Aggai; Mar Mari.

The names of the eastern Catholics, the successors of the apostles Addai and Mari.

2. Mari (was buried) in the convent of Koni.

Mari was buried in the Greek Palace.

Jesus stood before the offering, set the disciples behind him, all clad with linen garments, and in their hands the cipher of the name of the father of the Treasury of the Light, and he made invocation thus, saying: "Hear me, O Father, father of all fatherhood, boundless Light: iaō iouō iaō aōi ōia psinōther therōpsin ōpsither nephthomaōth nephiomaōth marachachtha marmarachtha iēana menaman amanēi (of heaven) israi amēn amēn soubaibai appaap amēn amēn deraarai (behind) amēn amēn sasarsartou amēn amēn koukiamin miai amēn amēn iai iai touap amēn amēn amēn main mari mariē marei amēn amēn amēn.

Jesus stood before the offering, set the disciples behind him, all clad with linen garments, and in their hands the cipher of the name of the father of the Treasury of the Light, and he made invocation thus, saying: "Hear me, O Father, father of all fatherhood, boundless Light: iaō iouō iaō aōi ōia psinōther therōpsin ōpsither nephthomaōth nephiomaōth marachachtha marmarachtha iēana menaman amanēi (of heaven) israi amēn amēn soubaibai appaap amēn amēn deraarai (behind) amēn amēn sasarsartou amēn amēn koukiamin miai amēn amēn iai iai touap amēn amēn amēn main mari mariē marei amēn amēn amēn.

Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, we do not interrupt even for the recitation of Shema‘.” Rebbi Yoḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, we do interrupt even for prayer.” This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Yoḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Yoḥanan says: “if only a man would pray the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain!” Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said: “If I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that he should create two mouths for man; one for him to exert himself in Torah and the other one for his other needs.” But he changed his mind and said: “With one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of its denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be? Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Yoḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabiah, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shema‘ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabiah said: just as they interrupt for Shema‘, so they interrupt for prayer, tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah”. Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies in order to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Yoḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the afterbirth he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and he does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not formulate: “He is like a man reading in the Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. One is like the other. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was permanently studying Torah, did not prefer Shema‘ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not formulate: “He who reads (Shema‘) after that did not lose, he is only like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said: He who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

Rav Huna said: If one put something into his mouth and forgot to recite the benediction, if it is fluid he spits it out, if it is food he puts it to one side. Rebbi Isaac bar Mari before Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan even if it is food he takes it out since it is written (Ps. 71:8) “May my mouth be full of Your praise, all day long of Your glory.”

Rebbi Zeïra asked: These three that are called, how are you treating them? As three who ate together or as three who ate each one for himself? If you treat them as three who ate together then the first one recites the benediction before, the last one recites the benediction after, and the middle one does not recite any benediction at all. If you treat them as three who ate each one for himself then even the middle one recites benedictions before and after. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, they did learn the benedictions for the Torah from Grace only in public. If in public, then in private one should not recite any benediction! Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said: They made it equal to other commandments of the Torah. Just as other commandments of the Torah need benedictions, this also needs a benediction.

HALAKHAH: “If one built a new house or bought new garments, etc.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Not only new ones, but even used ones if they are new for him. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If he bought [a garment], he says: “Praise to Him Who made us live, preserved us, and let us reach this time.” If it was given to him, he says: “Praise to Him Who is good and does good.” Rebbi Abba, father of Rebbi Abba Mari, in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: If he bought, he says: “Praise to Him Who let us reach this time.” If it was given to him, he says: “Praise to Him Who is good and does good.” If he wears the garment, he says: “Praise to Him Who clothes the naked.”

“And Torah study.” Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin. One said that the entire world is not worth even one saying of the Torah. The other said that even all commandments of the Torah are not worth even one saying of the Torah. Rebbi Tanḥuma and Rebbi Yose ben Zimra, one said like the first and one said like the second. Rebbi Abba, father of Rebbi Abba bar Mari, in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One verse says (Prov. 8:11) “all desirables do not equal it;” the other verse says (Prov. 3:15) “your desirables do not equal it.” “Desirables” are gems and pearls, “your desirables” are the words of the Torah, for it is written (Jer. 9:23): “For these I desire - saying of the Eternal.”

Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and I saw them using fig cake as free. I asked Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar; he said to me that Zeugos used to permit it. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar in the name of Zeugos of Caesarea: All that sees the water is free. Some want to say, up to the salt tower, some want to say, up to the Telamon cave. Rebbi Abba Mari said, the words of the rabbis imply that all kinds are forbidden in Caesarea. “Wheat, bread, oil, dates, rice, and cumin.” Fig cakes are not included? It is in the Mishnah. But we have also mentioned rice and cumin; these are in the Mishnah and we have spelled them out! Those are the ones which are left out. “These are permitted in the Sabbatical year, in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle they are demay.” These are permitted in the Sabbatical year; why are they not Sabbatical fruits in the Sabbatical year? The Jews treat them as Sabbatical, the Gentiles are free, Jews and Gentiles outnumber Samaritans. In all other years of the Sabbatical cycle they are demay, the Judean Jews put them in order, Gentiles are free, Jews and Gentiles outnumber Samaritans. How far? The inn of the pillars, the inn at Tayibeh, as far as Kefar Saba. Their juices are certain in Caesarea.

What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” Rebbi Ḥinena said, if Egyptian pumpkin whose leaves form roofs is permitted, green melon and Egyptian beans so much more. Rebbi Abba Mari said, Rebbi Mana did not say so. Rebbi said, all those about which we did state “green melon and Egyptian beans,” also include Egyptian pumpkin. What means “but I prefer their words over my words?” That none of these form roofs like Greek gourd.

Rebbi Ila and Rebbi Zeїra, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The first amphora follows Rebbi Yose, the second both Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it not disagree with Rebbi Meїr? He said to him, we may say it follows neither Rebbi Meїr nor Rebbi Yose since we find that Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Zeїri: Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] in all cases. I said to him, because he considers suspended [heave] from the words of the Torah. He said to me, do I not explain that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwellings? For we have stated: “From Gentiles’ dwellings one suspends; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, as we have stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Should he not burn it during the morning hours? Explain it if he was lazy and did not burn it [then]. Know that this is so, for he did not state “during the morning hours.” Is that not because he was lazy and did not burn [then]? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it if impurity was created at that time, and you cannot infer anything.

There, we stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled even if this causes a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it should not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the Rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua. But we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he knows he will cause a blemish.” This parallels the later opinion of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Deut. 12:24): “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” I permitted you its blood only to spill it. Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, objected: That is written about [blood of] invalid sacrifices: “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, you get from it for preparation. Just as water prepares, so blood prepares. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them explained the same verse (Lev. 22:21): “Perfect it shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it.” Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish.

From where are tithes taken, from the house or from the field? Let us hear from the following: If a fellow died and in his estate was a chest full of grain, even if he filled it the same day it is supposed to be in order. Is it impossible that he should not have been of clouded mind at least for an hour? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he died with a clear mind. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “One tenth which I shall separate in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should distribute it to the poor.” That means, from the house. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from the following: “If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person;” that means, from the house. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following: “(Deut. 26:13) ‘From the house’, that is ḥallah.” That means, from the field.

Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the following: “If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is guilty only once.” Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from here (Deut. 26:14): “I did not eat from it in my mourning”, but I drank?

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.” ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together!

“The people of Alexandria brought their ḥallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, is that not also from Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder? He holds that they decided about these and ordered them to be returned.

It was stated: “If a Gentile grafted a food-tree on a futile tree, even though a Jew is not permitted to do this, it is obligated for ‘orlah.” From when does one count ‘orlah? From the moment it is planted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only those for which intent is important; for example carob trees from Ẓalmon or Gidud; but on a willow it is as if planted in the earth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even on a willow. But did we not state: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted it should be uprooted.” According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who will explain it by grafting on a willow it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said even on a willow, why should it be uprooted? There is a difference because they unite in the Sabbatical year. And that is what has been said, “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: There is no “grafted” here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, even for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no “grafted” here; for the past, certainly not to start out with.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows his father’s argument. What is his father’s argument? Just as Rebbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted. Rebbi Abba Mari said, what is his father’s argument? Just as Rebbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted. But Rebbi Simeon said that only about aftergrowth of vegetables; did he say that for aftergrowth of grains? He established that aftergrowth of vegetables and aftergrowth of grains are the same.

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “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 (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? 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 is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”? 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 (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

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

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent. But did we not state: “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated. Rebbi Abba Mari said both, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

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

It was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment. On the day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment. But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate, to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions? From where that there is a clear commandment? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai: I did not give from it to the dead. Where do we hold? If not to bring a casket or shrouds for him, this is forbidden for the living, therefore certainly for the dead. What is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? I am saying that this is anointing.

“If they are intelligent they settle accounts with him after the Sabbath..” There we have stated, “he leaves his toga with him and settles his account after the Sabbath.” There you say, he has his pledge with him; here what do you have? Rebbi Abba Mari said, because of this we taught, “if they were intelligent”.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv; if it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv.” If it was lost in the field his eruv is not a [valid] eruv, for he cannot bring it in a Sabbath way. If it was lost in town his eruv is a [valid] eruv, for he can bring it through exempt space. Rebbi Eleazar said it correctly: what is the reason (of Rav) [of the rabbis]? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, “he even originally reduces and takes.” Rebbi Meïr said this only for a holiday, maybe for the Sabbath? But here we are concerned with the Sabbath! Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s, as we have stated there, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave.” There is no difference between tying and locking. That means, about a stone tower. But for a wooden tower he is like one who breaks the amphora to eat dried figs from it.

They asked before Rebbi Abba: Concerning what you are saying about a window between two courtyards, is it the same for a window between two houses? He told them, yes. Is it the same for a window between two roofs? He told them, yes. May one make an eruv across skylights? Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is a disagreement between Rav and Samuel, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city are one domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah; Rav said, one may move inside them even a kor, even two kor.

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

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.

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

“Anointing.” As it was stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted. But it was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment. On the Day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate, to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions?

Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following:] I did not eat from it in my mourning, but I drank?

It was stated: The first ones fall to the new sheqalim, the second ones to the old sheqalim. Which ones are first and which ones are second? Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Abba Mari. One said, those that the city dwellers sent first, but the other one said, those which came in to the hands of the Temple trustees first.

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

Rav Huna instructed the Head of the Dispersion to go out in a chair. Rav Ḥisda asked, was it not stated, one does not go out in a chair, whether men or women? Even a student of the Sages does not err in this matter, and Rebbi Huna erred? Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Bar Gerontios the healer to be carried on a sheet when going visiting the sick on the Sabbath. Miasha the grandson of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi was carried on a sheet when going preaching in public on the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeriqan said to Rebbi Ze`ira, when you go to the South, ask about this. It was asked from Rebbi Simon. Rebbi Simon told them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only for the needs of the public but also for a possible need of the public. Example: Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Abba Mari, and Rebbi Mattaniah instructed {to bring} bread to Ursicinus on the Sabbath, for a possible need of the public.

“Nor sail on water” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: This implies that it is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. And similarly, it is forbidden to set something under sail to bring it to him. Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting. They saw a person splitting the water to both sides and drinking. Rebbi Abba Mari said to Rebbi Mattaniah, this is what Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, a person is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. He answered, it is what we have stated, “a person may break open an amphora to eat dried figs from it”

“Nor sail on water” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: This implies that it is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. And similarly, it is forbidden to set something under sail to bring it to him. Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting. They saw a person splitting the water to both sides and drinking. Rebbi Abba Mari said to Rebbi Mattaniah, this is what Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, a person is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. He answered, it is what we have stated, “a person may break open an amphora to eat dried figs from it”

“Anointing.” As it was stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted. But it was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment. On the Day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate, to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions?

Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Mattanah, Yose bar Menashia in the name of Rav: Following whom who says, all of it, or who says from a Jewish man, or whom who said from after these matters, but only from a complete scroll. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Mattanah, Yose bar Menashia in the name of Rav: If it was written like fifths one does not read from it in public. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, because of the uneducated. Ulla from Bireh, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The learned fundraiser has to read it in the night and to repeat during the day. We were of the opinion to say, to teach its Mishnah. Rebbi Abba Mari the Babylonian said, to repeat its reading.

Rebbi Ze`ira asked: These three that are called, how are you treating them? As three who ate together or as three who ate each one for himself? If you treat them as three who ate together then the first one recites the benediction before, the last one recites the benediction after, and the middle one does not recite any benediction at all. If you treat them as three who ate each one for himself then even the middle one recites benedictions before and after. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, they did learn the benedictions for the Torah from Grace only in public. If in public, then in private one should not recite any benediction! Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said: They made it equal to other commandments of the Torah. Just as other commandments of the Torah need benedictions, this also needs a benediction.

Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died without having repudiated since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” So is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not dies, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if her father is the only levir.

“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and one who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, i. e., he who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and that a woman receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and the child of the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and the child of the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai says unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel, one said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed its own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

“The deaf-and-dumb disables.” Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The wife of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane immerses herself from her husband’s bosom and eats”? Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah, one said, a disqualified deaf-and-dumb, the other said, a deaf-and-dumb levir.

There, they say, because Rebbi Joshua praised Rebbi Aqiba, it implies that practice follows his argument. The rabbis of Caesarea say, he praised him for his ingenuity, but in fact practice does not follow his argument, since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for tertiary [impurity] for tithes, even according to Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Hilai: Even according to Rebbi Aqiba one does not whip. Why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Since the ṭevul yom has no touch for profane food, also secondary impurity has no touch for profane food. Rebbi Eleazar said, as the count for profane food so is the count of tithes. This corresponds to what Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi, said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: We deal with somebody who ate profane food, and that Chapter deals with tithe. Rebbi Yose said, even its primary [impurity] is not clear. Not “I will not eat” is written, but “I did not eat.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, since it is written “following all Your commandments which You commanded me,” is it as if it were not clear?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa: Not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Rebbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rebbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua says, only if she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rebbi Abba Mari asked: There, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so?

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Here, she did not drink but in the case of breaking the calf’s neck they did break it. Rav said, she did drink. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would not drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the end say: “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rav say, she would drink? Rebbi Joḥanan said, she would not drink. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. “If two [witnesses] say, she became impure, but one witness says, she did not become impure, she would not drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. He explains it for those whose testimony is invalid. But if for those whose testimony is invalid, does not the first statement say: “If one [witness] says, she became impure, but two [witnesses] say, she did not become impure, she would drink.” That implies that if one witness was against another single witness, she would drink. How could Rebbi Joḥanan say, she would not drink? They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel, the Mishnah talks about those whose testimony is invalid. They said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: The Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: What does it mean, “the Mishnah speaks about another rendez-vous”? He said to him, so says Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he had declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place. She went to a secluded place by the testimony of two [witnesses]. If one of them said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion and about impurity. After the time of seclusion, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw her that she became impure while in the secluded place, there [is testimony] about the seclusion but not about impurity. If there were three [witnesses]. One said, I saw that she did not become impure while in the secluded place, how do you treat this? As a testimony which, if part of the testimony is thrown out, the entire testimony is thrown out, or does one accept the remainder of the testimony? They said in the name of Rebbi Abba Mari: Even he who says, if part of it is thrown out, all is thrown out, here one accepts the remainder of the testimony, since the matter has feet to stand on.

Rebbi Meïr said: It is written, “the wise man’s eyes are in his head.” The stupid one’s are where? In his legs. Rebbi Abba Mari said, the wise man knows what will be the final outcome when he starts something. “Gad, a troop will gang up on him.” A troop comes to rob him, and he robs them.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody marries off his daughter,” etc. Rebbi Abba Mari, Rebbi Yose’s brother, asked: Did we not state: From where that even if he said, I shall go naked but clothe her, one does not tell him to be naked and to clothe her but he clothes her according to her social standing? There, it is the way of people to say, it is better for me to stand naked if only I cover my wife; but here it was a prior condition.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his” but [ ]. In which respect? In case the heir took it, one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the creditor] adds another denar and redeems these properties.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate? But we talk about standing grain. Since if the administrator misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule. Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.

HALAKHAH: “Indeterminate oaths are interpreted restrictively,” etc. They wanted to say, salted for preservation, not short-term salted. Rebbi Yudan said, since we have stated: “this is for me like salted meat, like libation wine,” this imples that short-term salted is called “salted”. What is short-term salted? As it was stated: “He puts the limbs on the salt and turns them over.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, for if he leaves them there, they become salted meat. But which text says it? As Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, “one who takes olives from the vat dips each single one in salt and eats it.” That implies that short-term salted is called “salted”.

HALAKHAH: “ ‘From the salted’ he is forbidden only salted fish,” etc. They wanted to say, salted for preservation, not short-term salted. Rebbi Yudan said, since we have stated: “this is for me like salted meat, like libation wine,” this imples that short-term salted is called “salted”. What is short-term salted? As it was stated: “He puts the limbs on the salt and turns them over.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, for if he left them there, they would become salted meat. But which text says it? As Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Zabda said, “one who takes olives from the vat dips each single one in salt and eats it.” This implies that short-term salted is called “salted”.

HALAKHAH: “One creates an opening for a man with his wife’s ketubah” etc. Does one collect from movables? Rebbi Abba said, even if one could say, one collects from movables, one tells him to pay. Rebbi Manisha asked, could one tell the heirs to collect from pledged property? Rebbi Abba Mari said, the Mishnah says that one does not say so, as we have stated there: “It should be given to the heirs since everybody has to swear but the heirs do not have to swear.” What does one make her swear? There, they say, from straw I did not collect, from his person I did collect.

We understand “if I wash”. “If I do not wash”? Let her wash! Rebbi Mana said, if she said: “Any benefit from me shall be qônām for you after I shall have washed myself, if I ever wash myself.” Why should he not dissolve for her? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only when she said, “any benefit from my body shall be qônām for you after I shall have washed myself.” Why can he not force? Did not Rebbi Huna say, [if she vowed] any benefit from me [shall be forbidden] to you, he forces her and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you [shall be forbidden] to me, he has to dissolve. There is a difference because it is a benefit for him and her. Rebbi Abba Mari said, If I wash [today], I shall not wash forever. If I wear jewellery [today], I shall not wear jewellery forever. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nasa: If I wash I shall not wear jewellery; if I wear jewellery I shall not wash.

Rebbi Yudan said, there, if he said I did such and such, here, if he says do such and such. Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi inquired: He should have understanding for the future if he has understanding for the past; (if he has no understanding for the past,) he would not have understanding for the future! Rebbi Abba Mari said, here we deal with a mute; there is no agency for a mute. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we deal with a sane person. Why is there no divorce? Because I say, he was occupied with his documents. We also stated thus: “When was this said? When he was paralyzed while being healthy. But if he was paralyzed by a prior sickness, once is enough.”

“Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed about co-wives, and sisters, and an old bill of divorce, and a woman doubtfully married, and someone who gives qiddushin in the value of a peruṭa, and someone who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in a hostelry, and a woman who receives qiddushin for at least a denar or the value of a denar, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai but they behave truthfully and in peace, as it is said: ‘Love truth and peace.’ ” Bastardy is between them and you say so? How is that? If a first man gives her qiddushin for a peruṭa and a second [gives her afterwards)] for a denar, in the opinion of the House of Shammai she is betrothed to the second and her child by the first is a bastard. In the opinion of the House of Hillel she is betrothed to the first and her child by the second is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel as a restriction. In that case, the House of Shammai should marry women from the House of Hillel since they concede to them. But the House of Hillel should not marry women from the House of Shammai since they do not concede to them. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They all followed the same practice. If they followed the same practice, in this case we stated: “The House of Shammai sent and diminished it, since the House of Shammai say unless most of it is missing?” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai acted before the question came before the House of Hillel. After a question came before the House of Hillel, the House of Shammai were not touching it. Rebbi Abba Mari said, that is correct. Did we not state: “They declared impure all purities from before”, but not in the future. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel disagreed. One said both acted according to valid practice; the other said, each party followed their own practice. Bastardy is between them and you say so? The Omnipresent watched and no case ever happened.

“By money”. “The money of his sale price shall be;” he can be redeemed by money, not by produce nor by vessels. Everywhere you treat money’s worth like money, but here you do not treat money’s worth like money. Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, because the verse repeated “money, of money”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, but if he wants to reduce, he can leave for the reduced amount even for produce, even for vessels. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said that this is only if he did not give them their money’s worth. But if he gave them their money’s worth, it is like money.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Following him, who said “for servitude”, he makes up before he leaves. But was it not stated: After he redeemed him it is as if he were sold to him, he enslaves him before he leaves. Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is no “enslaves him before he leaves”, only “he makes up before he leaves.” If his relatives want to redeem him from the first [master’s], they redeem. If his relatives want to redeem him from the second [master’s], they cannot redeem. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That follows him who said: “by these to freedom, by all others to servitude.”

The Torah said, four compartments for four paragraphs. If he made five compartments for four paragraphs, he is punishable. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: He is punishable only if he instructs in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he never is punishable unless he deny and instruct in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim, on condition that he simultaneously deduct in a matter which permits subtraction and addition. The face of Rav Hoshaia lit up. He told him, do I need you that you enjoy it? I do not need you, I am adding to your statement. Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah objected, did we not state, “the body of baheret is the square area of a split cilician bean”? Rebbi Abba Mari said, one who said it is pure. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, did we not state, “two paragraphs in the mezuzzah”? He told him, phylacteries and mezuzah are the same. Rav Hamnuna objected, was it not stated: The ṣiṣit must be four finger lengths for four threads? He told him, in that he diminished but did not add. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, was it not stated, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes. If he used it in thirds, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes? He told him, he subtracts from the scalded and adds for round cakes and flat cakes.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday does not have to mention the New Moon. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said, it was stated thus: “The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday in the morning, the House of Shammai say, he prays eight [benedictions], but the House of Hillel say seven. For musaf, the House of Shammai say ten, but the House of Hillel say nine.” Should he not say eleven? Rebbi Yose said, where do they disagree? In a matter which needs a separate benediction. But here even on a weekday he simply includes it. So he should mention it in “Service”. Rebbi Yose asked, since the two he-goats of New Year’s day come because of the New Moon, why do you say that he does not have to mention the New Moon? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal not ask correctly? As it was stated: “The two lambs of Pentecost and the two he-goats of New Year’s Day.” If the first atoned, what does the second atone for? For impurity that happened between them. Is that not Rebbi Simeon’s? And Rebbi Simeon splits atoning. But if both of them were for the New Moon? Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do that, since it is written, in addition to the elevation offering of the month. In addition, from what we have stated, “twelve for the twelve months of the year.” A patrician stood before the Ark and did not mention the New Moon; they praised him. Rav Hoshaia asked: think of it, if they slaughtered both of them simultaneously? What impurity happened between them? Rebbi Bun said, if all of Israel are proper, would they not bring what the Torah prescribed for them?

HALAKHAH: “Anything which is more frequent than another,” etc. [“If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull”,] for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for. It is preferable that the atoner precede the atoned for, as it is written, he shall atone for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of Israel. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, which one has precedence? Let us hear from the following: A voluntary gift of the Anointed and rams of idolatry were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside. He only said “since their blood enters inside;” this implies that between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. If there were standing the bull of idolatry, the ram which accompanies it, and another purification sacrifice. The bull precedes the ram, the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. How is this done? Rebbi Yose said, since the ram is dependent in time on the bull, it is as if the bull preceded it, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. The bull of idolatry precedes the ram because it precedes in Scripture. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes [in Scripture.] Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective: After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation; it made it lean on the permanent elevation offering. Between the sacrifice of a man and the sacrifice of a woman, the man’s sacrifice has precedence. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A slave brings a bull and his master brings a bull, the slave’s precedes the master’s, as we have stated there: “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies.”

Rab Mari, the son of Samuel's daughter, asked Raba : Our Mishnah states : Workmen may read [the Shema'] on the top of a tree or on the top of scaffolding ; hence it is to be inferred that it does not require Kawwanah. I quote in refutation: Who reads the Shema' must direct his heart; as it is said, "Hear, O Israel" (Deut. vi. 4) and elsewhere, "Attend and hear, O Israel " (ibid, xxvii. 9) ; as here "attention" is required so also there !

Rab Mari asked Rab Pappa : How is it if a hair protruded from his garment ? The latter exclaimed : Hair is hair.

As for the rest of the world, [they may say it] until midday. And not beyond that? For Rab Mari b. Rab Huna, the son of R. Jeremiah b. Abba, has said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man erred and omitted to say the Tefillah in the evening, he should say it twice in the morning; [if he omitted it] in the morning, he should say it twice in the afternoon.

So also Mari the son of Rab Huna the son of R. Jeremiah b. Abba taught : A man should not take leave of another except from the midst of a discussion of Halakah, so that he may remember him thereby.

Rab Mari said in the name of R. Johanan : He who makes it a habit to eat lentils once in thirty days keeps croup away from his house ; but not every day. What is the reason ? Because it is bad for the breath of the mouth.

R. Mari also said in the name of R. Johanan : He who makes it a habit to eat mustard once in thirty days keeps illnesses away from his house ; but not every day. What is the reason ? Because it is bad for heartweakness.

It has been similarly reported : Rabbah b. Mari said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : The teaching applies only to Sabbaths and Festivals and the time when one comes from the bath-house and the meal after blood-letting, for then a man arranges his meal with wine; but on the other days of the year, a benediction is to be said over each cup of wine.

Rabbah b. Mari visited the house of Raba on a week-day, and noticed him pronounce the benediction [over the wine] before the meal and again after it ; and he said to him, "That is correct, and so also said R. Joshua b. Levi."

Rabbah b. Mari said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : Over any food belonging to the seven species, before partaking thereof one says the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the tree," and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

Nor may one enter the Temple Mount with his staff"...; nor may he use it as a short cut [koppendaria]. What means koppendaria? Raba said : A short cut, as the word implies. But Rab Hanna b. Adda said in the name of Rab Samma b. R. Mari: It is as people say, "Instead of going round the row of houses, I will go through it" Rab Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If one enters a Synagogue not for the purpose of making it a short cut, he may use it in that manner.

R. Marion said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, and others say that Rabbah b. Mari taught in the name of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai: here are two palms in the valley of Hinnom, and smoke goes up between them, and it is in that connection that we have learned the thorn-palms of the Iron Mountain are valid, and it is the entrance to Gehenna.

It was stated: Abaye said he law is in agreement with Rabbi. But Rava said: The law is in agreement with the sages. R. Mari the son of Shmuel’s daughter, I noticed that Rava himself did not act in accordance with his own ruling but rising early, he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing, and when he had to go a second time he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing again. We too act in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi and recite the blessing all seven days.

Said R. Mari, son of the daughter of Samuel: I was standing (on the day the miracle was performed by R. Judah) on the bank of the River Papa, and saw angels, disguised as sailors, filling ships with sand, which turned into fine flour. Everybody tried to obtain some, but they were told that they should not buy that kind of flour, because it was the product of a miracle. The next morning ships laden with wheat arrived from Parzina.

Rabbah sent to Mari b. Mar by Abaye a sack full of dates and a cupful of roasted ears of grain. Abaye to him: Mari will now say, “If a countryman becomes a king, he does not take his basket off his neck.”

Rabbah sent to Mari b. Mar by Abaye a sack full of dates and a cupful of roasted ears of grain. Abaye to him: Mari will now say, “If a countryman becomes a king, he does not take his basket off his neck.”

Why then did he retract? On account of the difficulty raised by R. Mari. For R. Mari raised the following difficulty: After the sanctification of Shiloh there is permission [for altars], but after the sanctification of Jerusalem there is no such permission. We have also taught: After they [the Israelites] came to Jerusalem, the altars were forbidden, and they were never permitted again, and it was the “inheritance.”

Why then did he retract? On account of the difficulty raised by R. Mari. For R. Mari raised the following difficulty: After the sanctification of Shiloh there is permission [for altars], but after the sanctification of Jerusalem there is no such permission. We have also taught: After they [the Israelites] came to Jerusalem, the altars were forbidden, and they were never permitted again, and it was the “inheritance.”

Rab Mari said, Learn from this that common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things, is like hallowed things. Wherefore? Is it

And the Rabbis (and some say Rabbah bar Mari) say: "Who loves wealth, that is his reward? Anyone who loves to teach in public—that is his reward." The rabbis put their eyes on Rava son of Rabbah.