meritorious

From one who has mostly merit and a minority of sins they collect in this world for the minority of light sins in order to give him his complete reward in the future. But to one who has mostly sins and a minority of merits they give the reward for light merits in this world in order to collect from him his complete punishment in the future world. But from one who tears away the yoke, who breaks the covenant, and who finds aspects in the Torah, even though he has meritorious deeds to his credit, they exact payment in this world and the capital remains for him in the future world. Idolatry and incest and adultery, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: One says, among the easy ones, and one says, among the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent but died in pain.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

MISHNAH: A person who goes to slaughter his Passover sacrifice, or to circumcise his son, or to eat the betrothal meal at his father-in-law’s house, and remembers that he has leavened matter in his house, if he can return, eliminate it, and return to his meritorious deed, he shall return and eliminate; otherwise, he has to nullify it in his thought. To save from the army, or from a river, or from a conflagration, or from a house collapse, he has to nullify it in his thought. To celebrate the holiday according to his wishes, he has to return immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, but it became lost, and he dedicated another in its stead. Before he could sacrifice the second, the first was found, and now both are at his disposal. There are Tannaim who state, it is meritorious to sacrifice the first; there are Tannaim who state, it is meritorious to sacrifice the second. Samuel stated as follows: He selects the better of the two, and the other one shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value well-being offerings on the Sixteenth. Rebbi Eleazar says, itself shall be brought as well-being offering on the Sixteenth. Rebbi comes with Rebbi Eleazar, and Samuel stated according to his system, as it was stated: “Rebbi says, no purification offering {dies} but one which was found after that the owner had been atoned, no money is thrown into the Dead Sea except which was found after the owner had been atoned.”

If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, but it became lost, and he dedicated another in its stead. Before he could sacrifice the second, the first was found, and now both are at his disposal. There are Tannaim who state, it is meritorious to sacrifice the first; there are Tannaim who state, it is meritorious to sacrifice the second. Samuel stated as follows: He selects the better of the two, and the other one shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and he shall bring for its value well-being offerings on the Sixteenth. Rebbi Eleazar says, itself shall be brought as well-being offering on the Sixteenth. Rebbi comes with Rebbi Eleazar, and Samuel stated according to his system, as it was stated: “Rebbi says, no purification offering {dies} but one which was found after that the owner had been atoned, no money is thrown into the Dead Sea except which was found after the owner had been atoned.”

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

The traders of Jerusalem used to say, “come and buy spices for the meritorious deed.” The family of Issy in the same of Issy: Why is it called “pounded”? Because one pounds for it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it has to be thick. His word implies that it is a remembrance of the mortar. There are Tannaim who state, it has to be soft. This word implies that it is a remembrance of the blood.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the tenth of an ephah and breeches obstruct. What is the reason? Both are “making”. Rebbi Ḥanina said, and do with Aaron and his sons so, all which is written in the Chapter obstructs. This comes following what Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: this is the word, and this is the word, even reading the Chapter obstructs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, anything obstructing for future generations obstructs here, [and anything not obstructing for future generations does not obstruct here.] What do you have? The leaning of hands and the remainders of the blood which are not obstructing in future generations are obstructing here. Rebbi Ḥanina said, the diadem and Aaron’s mitre precede the sons’ belts. Jehudah the great says, you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons. Rebbi Idi said, what you are saying is as a meritorious deed. But as a commandment, Moses brought near Aaron and his sons and washed them in water, and after that, he put the vest on him, and after that, Moses brought Aaron and his sons near and clothed them with shirts.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Meïr said, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he heard Hallel in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink to feel differently, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, he will not become drunk. May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color, when put in our cup. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles.

It is written, they looked after Moses until he reached the Tent. Two Amoraim, one says for shame, the other one says for praise. He who says for shame, “look at the thigh, look at the feet, look at his flesh. He eats from the Jews, and drinks from the Jews, everything he has is from the Jews.” He who says for praise, to see the just ones is meritorious [great for one who was worthy to see him.]

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah between trees it is qualified. Agents for meritorious deeds are not liable in matters of sukkah. Sick persons and their caregivers are not liable in matters of sukkah. One eats and drinks casually outside the sukkah.

“Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will make them stumble in the future.” Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated. Rebbi Jehudah the baker said, Heaven forbid that Rebbi Aqiba was excommunicated; but it was the head of Gader; Rabban Gamliel sent and removed him from his headship.

“Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will make them stumble in the future.” Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated. Rebbi Jehudah the baker said, Heaven forbid that Rebbi Aqiba was excommunicated; but it was the head of Gader; Rabban Gamliel sent and removed him from his headship.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion about this. “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting, [the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says], since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he started the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion about this. “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting, [the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says], since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he started the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

MISHNAH: One is liable on the holiday for everything classified as Sabbath rest, classified as obligatory, classified as meritorious. These are classified as Sabbath rest: One does not climb on a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor sail on water, nor clap the hands in anger, nor clap the hands in joy, nor dance. These are classified as obligatory, one does not judge, nor contract preliminary marriage, nor give ḥaliṣah, nor enter levirate marriage. These are classified as meritorious, one does not dedicate, nor dedicate one’s worth, nor dedicate as herem, nor collect heaves and tithes. All these were said regarding a holiday, so much more regarding the Sabbath. The only difference between holiday and Sabbath is preparation of food.

MISHNAH: One is liable on the holiday for everything classified as Sabbath rest, classified as obligatory, classified as meritorious. These are classified as Sabbath rest: One does not climb on a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor sail on water, nor clap the hands in anger, nor clap the hands in joy, nor dance. These are classified as obligatory, one does not judge, nor contract preliminary marriage, nor give ḥaliṣah, nor enter levirate marriage. These are classified as meritorious, one does not dedicate, nor dedicate one’s worth, nor dedicate as herem, nor collect heaves and tithes. All these were said regarding a holiday, so much more regarding the Sabbath. The only difference between holiday and Sabbath is preparation of food.

HALAKHAH: Sabbath rest which is voluntary, and obligation which is meritorious. What is Sabbath rest which is voluntary? One does not climb on a tree, nor rides on an animal, nor sail on water, [nor clap his hands in anger, nor clap his hands in joy, nor dance.] What is obligation which is meritorious? One does not judge, nor contract preliminary marriage, nor give ḥaliṣah, nor enter levirate marriage.

HALAKHAH: Sabbath rest which is voluntary, and obligation which is meritorious. What is Sabbath rest which is voluntary? One does not climb on a tree, nor rides on an animal, nor sail on water, [nor clap his hands in anger, nor clap his hands in joy, nor dance.] What is obligation which is meritorious? One does not judge, nor contract preliminary marriage, nor give ḥaliṣah, nor enter levirate marriage.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

HALAKHAH: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. [There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will cause a deluge. Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.] He answered him, but does not the Holy One, praise to Him, cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person? He said to him, [yes]. The Holy One, praise to Him, may cancel His decision because of the decision of a just person, but He will not cancel the decision of one just person because of the decision of his just colleague.

“But what can I do since you are misbehaving before the Omnipresent like a son who misbehaves towards his father who does his will.” Rebbi Berekhia, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jehudah. But some say it in the name of Rav Ḥisda, and some say it in the name of Rav Mattanah. You decide the command and He confirms it for you. Why does the verse say, “for you”? But even if I am saying so and you are saying otherwise, yours is enduring, Mine is not enduring. On your paths shines light; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, this is rainfall. As heavy as He has loaded the rain-cloud, His light will disperse the cloud. For those humbled you order elevation; if I said to humble them and you say to elevate them, yours is enduring, Mine is not enduring. And the one of low eyes will be saved; I said to bring their eyes down by misfortune but you are saying to save them, yours is enduring, Mine is not enduring. I said, may the not-innocent escape? But you [said], he shall escape even though he is not innocent, yours is enduring, Mine is not enduring. What means, and he will escape by the purity of your hands, by the choice of your hands, by the merit of meritorious deeds and good works which were in your hands from before.

What are “the families of the pestle stealers and the fig hackers”? But when Jeroboam ben Nabat installed border guards on the roads which did not permit Israel to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, everybody who was qualified and sin-fearing in that generation brought his first fruits, put them in a basket, covered them with dried figs and took the pestle. He takes the basket on his shoulder and the pestle in his hand. When he reaches that guard-post they were asking him, where are you going? He answered him, I am only going to make these few dried figs into a single fig cake with this pestle in my hand. After he had passed this guard, he adorned them and brought them to Jerusalem. Why does one say, the family of Salmai the puller-down? But anybody who was volunteering logs and firewood for the altar brought wood and makes them into a kind of steps, assembles them into a kind of ladder, and puts them on his shoulder. When he reaches that guard he asks him, where are you going? He answers him, I am only going to bring two pigeon chicks from this dovecote over there using the ladder on my shoulder. After he had passed this guard, he disassembled {his package} and brought it to Jerusalem. Since they put themselves in danger for the meritorious deed that merited a good reputation in the world, and about them he says, the remembrance of the just is a blessing.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion because of this: “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting. Rebbi Yose said, since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he did not start the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion because of this: “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting. Rebbi Yose said, since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he did not start the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the Levites’ song they should not have less than six readings; its mnemonic is hazayu laḵ. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: [the Song on the Sea] and Deborah’s song are written space on brick and brick on space. The ten sons of Haman and the kings of Canaan are written space on space and brick on brick, since any such building will not stand. How is that, as meritorious act or as impediment? Rebbi said to Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother, do you remember when we were standing in front of your uncle’s store that Rebbi Abba bar Zavda passed by and we asked him when he said in the name of Rav: an impediment?

MISHNAH: If somebody said, I shall not stand before the Ark in coloreds, also in whites he shall not stand. With sandals I shall not stand, also barefoot he shall not stand. He who makes his tefillah round puts himself in danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he places it on his forehead or on his hand, it is the way of heretics. If he covered it with gold and put it on his sleeve, it is the way of outsiders.

Where does one put this mezuzah? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: one divides it into three parts and puts it at the start of the uppermost third. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Ḥuna: One divides the door into half, then into thirds, and puts it at the top of the lowest third. What is between them? The place of the mezuzzah is between them. Bar Tabari asked Rebbi Isaac, think of it, if it was a high gate? He said to him, he puts it at his shoulder’s height. The house of study of Rebbi Ḥanina was made so. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the container of Rebbi’s mezuzzah was made like a bolt. If it was hung on the door, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he excavated the top of a stick and put it at an unbecoming place, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if he (nailed) [did not nail] it. But did we not state, on condition that he nailed it? Rebbi Yose said, on condition that he dedicated {the place} for it. Those of the family Malwan did so in the wars. Samuel said, if it was put inside more than a hand-breadth it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: It is necessary that its shema` see the door. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: So is the baraita, a doorpost serving two doors he puts it on the one he chooses. How can its shema` see the door? If a house has two doors, he puts it on the one usually used. If both were usually used he puts it in front. If both were in front he puts it on the one he chooses. A door which opens to the roof or to a garden is as if open to a wall, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages are saying, it is as open to the market.

Where does one put this mezuzah? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: one divides it into three parts and puts it at the start of the uppermost third. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Ḥuna: One divides the door into half, then into thirds, and puts it at the top of the lowest third. What is between them? The place of the mezuzzah is between them. Bar Tabari asked Rebbi Isaac, think of it, if it was a high gate? He said to him, he puts it at his shoulder’s height. The house of study of Rebbi Ḥanina was made so. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the container of Rebbi’s mezuzzah was made like a bolt. If it was hung on the door, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he excavated the top of a stick and put it at an unbecoming place, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if he (nailed) [did not nail] it. But did we not state, on condition that he nailed it? Rebbi Yose said, on condition that he dedicated {the place} for it. Those of the family Malwan did so in the wars. Samuel said, if it was put inside more than a hand-breadth it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: It is necessary that its shema` see the door. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: So is the baraita, a doorpost serving two doors he puts it on the one he chooses. How can its shema` see the door? If a house has two doors, he puts it on the one usually used. If both were usually used he puts it in front. If both were in front he puts it on the one he chooses. A door which opens to the roof or to a garden is as if open to a wall, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages are saying, it is as open to the market.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions shall not be unimportant in your eyes, since leaning on is only a meritorious act and the fathers of the world disagreed about it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one has to press down with all his weight. If it were not so we would have to say that it is forbidden to touch an animal on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi sent for a man three times but he did not come. He sent, saying to him, if I had not ever excommunicated a person, I would have excommunicated this man since for 24 reasons one excommunicates and this is one of them: The entire property of anybody who will not come within three days following the council of ministers and Elders shall be confiscated and he shall be separated from the community of the Diaspora. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, there are many more of these dispersed in the Mishnah. There, we have stated: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, [would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will create a future stumbling block for the public;] would not prevent the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi sent for a man three times but he did not come. He sent, saying to him, if I had not ever excommunicated a person, I would have excommunicated this man since for 24 reasons one excommunicates and this is one of them: The entire property of anybody who will not come within three days following the council of ministers and Elders shall be confiscated and he shall be separated from the community of the Diaspora. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, there are many more of these dispersed in the Mishnah. There, we have stated: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, [would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. There, we have stated: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will create a future stumbling block for the public;] would not prevent the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.

Samuel said, PḤZ are obligatory, NTR meritorious. Uncovering the head, turning around the tear, turning the couch upright, are obligatory. Wearing shoes, sexual relations, washing, are meritorious. A student of Samuel had sexual relations. Samuel heard, was offended by him, and he died. He said, this was said as legal rule; maybe to be acted on? Rav said, ḤZ are obligatory, PN meritorious. Turning around the tear, turning the bed upright, are obligatory; uncovering the head, wearing shoes, are meritorious. Two of Rebbi’s sons went out, one with his head uncovered having taken off his shoes; the other with his head covered wearing shoes. Rebbi Jonah went up to Rebbi Gorion, who came out to him wearing shoes. He said to him, what are you thinking? That one will adopt action from you? One does not learn action from an unimportant personality.

Samuel said, PḤZ are obligatory, NTR meritorious. Uncovering the head, turning around the tear, turning the couch upright, are obligatory. Wearing shoes, sexual relations, washing, are meritorious. A student of Samuel had sexual relations. Samuel heard, was offended by him, and he died. He said, this was said as legal rule; maybe to be acted on? Rav said, ḤZ are obligatory, PN meritorious. Turning around the tear, turning the bed upright, are obligatory; uncovering the head, wearing shoes, are meritorious. Two of Rebbi’s sons went out, one with his head uncovered having taken off his shoes; the other with his head covered wearing shoes. Rebbi Jonah went up to Rebbi Gorion, who came out to him wearing shoes. He said to him, what are you thinking? That one will adopt action from you? One does not learn action from an unimportant personality.

Samuel said, PḤZ are obligatory, NTR meritorious. Uncovering the head, turning around the tear, turning the couch upright, are obligatory. Wearing shoes, sexual relations, washing, are meritorious. A student of Samuel had sexual relations. Samuel heard, was offended by him, and he died. He said, this was said as legal rule; maybe to be acted on? Rav said, ḤZ are obligatory, PN meritorious. Turning around the tear, turning the bed upright, are obligatory; uncovering the head, wearing shoes, are meritorious. Two of Rebbi’s sons went out, one with his head uncovered having taken off his shoes; the other with his head covered wearing shoes. Rebbi Jonah went up to Rebbi Gorion, who came out to him wearing shoes. He said to him, what are you thinking? That one will adopt action from you? One does not learn action from an unimportant personality.

Samuel said, PḤZ are obligatory, NTR meritorious. Uncovering the head, turning around the tear, turning the couch upright, are obligatory. Wearing shoes, sexual relations, washing, are meritorious. A student of Samuel had sexual relations. Samuel heard, was offended by him, and he died. He said, this was said as legal rule; maybe to be acted on? Rav said, ḤZ are obligatory, PN meritorious. Turning around the tear, turning the bed upright, are obligatory; uncovering the head, wearing shoes, are meritorious. Two of Rebbi’s sons went out, one with his head uncovered having taken off his shoes; the other with his head covered wearing shoes. Rebbi Jonah went up to Rebbi Gorion, who came out to him wearing shoes. He said to him, what are you thinking? That one will adopt action from you? One does not learn action from an unimportant personality.

HALAKHAH: “The father is not obligated to support his daughter,” etc. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is meritorious to feed one’s daughters. Some Tannaim state, the sons are most important. Some Tannaim state, the daughters are most important. He who says the sons are most important, for the study of Torah. He who says the daughters are most important, that they should not go outside for bad behavior.

HALAKHAH: “The father is not obligated to support his daughter,” etc. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is meritorious to feed one’s daughters. Some Tannaim state, the sons are most important. Some Tannaim state, the daughters are most important. He who says the sons are most important, for the study of Torah. He who says the daughters are most important, that they should not go outside for bad behavior.

MISHNAH: Whipping by three [judges]; in the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, by 23. The lengthening of a month by three [judges], the intercalation of a year by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one starts with three, one discusses with five, and one votes with seven. But if they voted with three, it is intercalated. The leaning of Elders and the breaking of the calf’s neck by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Simeon, but Rebbi Jehudah says, by five. Ḥalîṣah and repudiations by three [judges], [redemption of] the growth of the fourth year and Second Tithe whose value is not known by three [appraisers], also of Temple dedications by three. Estimations of movables by three [appraisers], Rebbi Jehudah says that one of them must be a Cohen; of real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans. Capital crimes [are judged] by 23. The participants in active or passive bestiality [is judged] by 23, as it is said, you shall slay the woman and the animal, and it says, and you shall slay the animal. The bull to be stoned [is judged] by 23, as it is said, the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die; like the owner’s death sentence so is the ox’s death sentence. The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake are sentenced to death by 23. Rebbi Eliezer says, anyone quick to kill them is meritorious; Rebbi Aqiba says, they are sentenced by 23.

This disagrees with the teaching of R. Samuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Jonathan, viz. By virtue of three [meritorious acts] Moses became worthy of three [favours].

Abbai said : We have it by tradition that if two ate together, it is a meritorious act on their part to separate. There is a teaching to the same effect : If two ate together, it is a meritorious act on their part to separate. Of what does it speak here ? When both of them are learned ; but if one is learned and the other illiterate, the former says Grace and the other fulfils his obligation [by listening].

Abbai said : We have it by tradition that if two ate together, it is a meritorious act on their part to separate. There is a teaching to the same effect : If two ate together, it is a meritorious act on their part to separate. Of what does it speak here ? When both of them are learned ; but if one is learned and the other illiterate, the former says Grace and the other fulfils his obligation [by listening].

What were the meritorious deeds of R. Adda b. 'Ahabah? They are as follows: R. Adda b. 'Ahabah's pupils once asked him, "Through what merits was such long life granted you?" He replied to them: I never lost my temper in my house, never walked in front of one who was my superior in learning, never thought of sacred subjects in filthy alleys, never walked four ells without meditating about the Torah or without the phylacteries, never slept or took a nap in the house of learning, never rejoiced in the misfortune of a fellow-man, and never called my neighbor by an opprobrious surname, which I gave him. Some say R. Adda said, "which others gave him."

There is a Baraitha. R. Eliezer says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "when he shall separate," "when he shall separate," twice (Lev. xxvii. 2, Numb. vi. 2). One separation has to do with binding and one separation with dissolving. R. Joshua says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Wherefore I sware in my wrath" (Ps. xcv. 11). In my wrath I sware, and I relented. R. Isaac says, They have something upon which they may rest, for it is said, "Whosoever is of a willing heart" (Exod. xxxv. 5). Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, says, They have something on which they may rest, for it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it, that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, If I had been there, I would have said to them, Mine is much better than yours, for it is said, "He shall not break his word" (Numb. xxx. 3, E.V. 2). He is not to break it, but afterwards it may be broken for him. Rabba said, There is an objection to all of them except Samuel's, for there is no objection to his. For if we take that of R. Eliezer, perhaps the truth rests with R. Jehudah, who said it in the name of R. Tarphon, for there is a Baraitha, R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Tarphon, I grant fully that neither of them is a Nazirite, for the state of a Nazirite is not given except on condition of separation. If we take the words of R. Joshua, perhaps the meaning is this, I sware in my wrath, and I will not relent. If we take the words of R. Isaac, perhaps it is to exclude the explanation of Samuel, for Samuel said, If a man has determined in his heart, it is further needful that he should utter it with his lips. Lo, we learn from this, that even though he has not uttered it with his lips, he is bound. If we take the words of Chănaniah, nephew of R. Joshua, perhaps it is as R. Gidel reported that Rab said; for R. Gidel said that Rab said, Whence do we find that an oath is meritorious? Because it is said, "I have sworn and have fulfilled it that I will observe thy righteous judgments" (Ps. cxix. 106). But the words of Samuel are open to no objection. Rabba said, or, if you like, R. Nachman bar Isaac said, This accords with the proverbial saying, Better is one grain of pepper than a basket full of dates.

Acher asked this question of R. Meir, after he (Acher) had gone forth into evil courses, and said to him, What is the meaning of the passage, "God hath even made the one side by side with the other?" (Eccles. vii. 14) He said to him, Every thing which the Holy One, blessed be He, created, He created with its counterpart. He created mountains, He created hills. He created seas, He created rivers. He said to him, R. Akiba thy teacher did not say so, but he explained it as meaning that He created righteous, He created sinners. He created the garden of Eden, He created Gehenna. To every individual belong two shares, one in the garden of Eden, and one in Gehenna. If a man is meritorious and righteous, he receives his own portion and also the portion of his neighbour in the garden of Eden. If he has incurred guilt, and is a wicked man, he receives his own portion and also the portion of his neighbour in Gehenna. R. Mesharshia said, What is the Scripture proof? As regards the righteous, it is written, "Therefore in their land they shall possess double;" (Is. lxi. 7) as regards the wicked it is said, "And break them with a double breach" (Jer. xvii. 18).