mishnah

MISHNAH: One does not sell public property to a private person because one diminishes its sanctity, the words of Rebbi Meïr. They said to him, if this be so, then not even from a large town to a small town.

MISHNAH: One may sell a synagogue only on the condition that they could take it back any time they so desire, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying that one may sell it permanently except for four things, a bath house, a tannery, a ritual bath, and a urinal. Rebbi Jehudah says, one sells it as a courtyard and the buyer may use it as he pleases. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said, in a destroyed synagogue one does not eulogize, nor twine ropes, nor set in it traps, nor on its roof lay out produce, nor use it as a short-cut, for it is said, I shall lay waste your holy places, they are in their holiness even if laid waste. If grasses are growing there one shall not tear them out because of the bad feeling.

MISHNAH: If the New Moon of Adar falls on a Sabbath, one reads the paragraph of Šeqalim. If it falls on a weekday one precedes it and interrupts the next Sabbath.

MISHNAH: On the second, remember. On the third, red cow. On the fourth, this month is for you. On the fifth one returns to the regular sequence. One interrupts for everything, for New Months, for Ḥanukkah, and for Purim, on fast days, and for bystanders and on the Day of Atonement.

Jeremiah the Scribe asked before Rav Jeremiah: What does one read if the day of the New Moon is a Sabbath? He said to him: One reads about the New Moon. Rebbi Ḥelbo said before Rebbi Immi: The Mishnah says so: “One interrupts for everything, for New Moons, for Ḥanukkah, and for Purim.”

MISHNAH: On Passover one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus. On Pentecost, seven weeks. On New Year’s Day, in the Seventh month on the First of the month On the Day of Atonement, after the death On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday.

MISHNAH: On Ḥanukkah, about the princes. On Purim, Amaleq came. On New Moons, on the start of your months. For the bystanders, the Creation. On fast days, blessings and curses. One does not interrupt curses, but one person reads them entirely. On Monday, Thursday, and Sabbath afternoon one reads regularly but they may not count it in the series, as it is said, Moses spoke to the Children of Israel about the holidays of the Eternal; the obligation is that each one be read in its time.

“But they may not count it in the series.” There are Tannaim who state, “they may count it in the series.” Rebbi Ze`ira, Abba bar Jeremiah, Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel: Practice follows him whom said, they may not count it in the series; as the Mishnah.

MISHNAH: One who reads the scroll either stands or sits. If one read it or two read it, one has fulfilled his obligation. On a place where one is used to recite a benediction, he has to recite the benediction; where one is used not to recite a benediction, he does not recite the benediction. On Monday, Thursday and Sabbath afternoon three are reading, no less and no more, and one does not conclude with a Prophet. The one who starts and the one who ends in the Torah recites the benediction, before or after.

HALAKHAH: “One who reads the scroll either stands or sits,” etc. How? In the past? Therefore not a priori? But was it not stated, “it happened that Rebbi Meïr read it in the synagogue of Tiveon while sitting; he gave it to another who recited the benediction.” So is the Mishnah: one is permitted to read it standing; one is permitted to read it sitting. How may he give it to another who recited the benediction? One reads and another recites the benediction? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Jeremiah: from here that the hearer is like the reader. It is written, which the King of Judea read. But did not Shafan read it? But from here that the hearer is like the reader.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written: by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel, it follows that the oral traditions are preferred. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan bar Rebbi Simeon. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: On them, and on them; words, the words all, like all;; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah. Even what a competent student will discover before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? There is something about which one would say, look, this is new! His colleague will answer, it already has been forever.

MISHNAH: On New Moon’s Days and on the intermediate days of holidays four are reading, no less and no more, and one does not close with a reading from Prophets. The ones who start and finish the Torah reading recite the benediction before and after the reading. This is the principle: four are reading on any {day} when there is musaf and it is not a holiday.

MISHNAH: On a holiday five, on the Day of Atonement six, on the Sabbath seven, no less but one may add to them, and one closes with a reading from Prophets. The ones who start and finish the Torah reading recite the benediction before and after the reading.

MISHNAH: One does not split the Shema`, nor stand in front of the Ark, nor lift his hands nor read in the Torah, nor close with Prophets, nor proceed standing and sitting, nor recite benedictions for mourners or bridegrooms, nor say Grace invoking the Name, with less than ten attendants; in matters of real estate nine and a Cohen, and similarly about humans.

MISHNAH: One who reads in the Torah may not read less than three verses. He should not read for the translator more than one verse, but in Prophets three. If all three were three paragraphs he reads them singly. One skips in Prophets but one does not skip in the Torah. How far may he skip? As long as the translator did not stop.

MISHNAH: He who closes with Prophets spreads out the Shema`, or stands before the Ark or lifts his hands. If he was under age, his father or teacher stand in his stead.

MISHNAH: A minor reads in the Torah and translates but he does not spread out the Shema`, nor stands before the Ark, nor lifts his hands. The uncovered spreads out the Shema` and translates, but he may not read in the Torah nor stand before the Ark, nor lift his hands. A blind man spreads out the Shema` and translates. Rebbi Jehudah says, a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated, “A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled.” And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Jehudah says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Meïr says, excluding the blind person. And here we have stated, “a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`.” Therefore if he saw he spreads. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, is the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not spread the Shema`.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person.

MISHNAH: A Cohen whose hands are defective shall not lift his hands. Rebbi Jehudah says, also a person whose hands are colored by woad hall not lift his hands since people look at him.

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.

MISHNAH: He who says, may the good ones bless You, is the way of heretics. To the bird’s nest reaches your mercy, Your name may be mentioned on good things we thank we thank: one silences him. One who circumscribes in incest prohibitions, one silences him. He who translates and do not give of your offspring to be burned for Moloch as “do not allow your semen to impregnate a Gentile woman”: one silences him with rebuke.

MISHNAH: The story of Reuben is read but not translated. The story of Tamar is read and translated. The first story of the Calf is read and translated, but the second is read and not translated.

MISHNAH: The priestly blessing, the stories of David and Amnon are neither read nor translated. One does not close with the Chariot, but Rebbi Jehudah permits. And Rebbi Eliezer says, one does not close with tell Jerusalem its abominations.

MISHNAH: All are obligated to appear except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the child, and the sexless, and the hermaphrodite, women, and unemancipated slaves, the lame, and the blind, and the sick, and the child, and anybody who cannot ascend on his feet. Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, any who cannot hold on to his father’s hand and climb from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said, three walking occasions.

HALAKHAH: “All are obligated to appear,” etc. The Mishnah is about the sacrifice of appearance, but the child is obligated in the personal appearance. From the following, assemble the people, men, women, and toddlers. And are not children older than toddlers?

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, the sacrifice of appearance is two silver coins, and the festival sacrifice one obolus. But the House of Hillel say, the sacrifice of appearance is one silver obolus, and the festival sacrifice two silver coins.

MISHNAH: Elevation sacrifices on a holiday come from profane money and well-being offerings from tithe money. On the first day of any holiday, the House of Shammai are saying from profane money but the House of Hillel are saying from tithe money.

MISHNAH: Israel fulfill their obligation with vows, and voluntary gifts and animal tithe, and the Cohanim with purification sacrifices, and reparation sacrifices, and breast and thigh, and firstlings, but not with birds or cereal sacrifices.

MISHNAH: He who has many eaters and a small budget brings many well-being offerings and few elevation offerings. Few eaters and a large budget, he brings many elevation offerings and few well-being offerings. Both few, for this one it was said “one obolus, two silver coins.” Both ample, for this one it was said, each man according to his means, corresponding to the blessing by the Eternal, your God, which He gave you.

MISHNAH: Someone who did not bring his holiday sacrifice on the first day of the holiday may bring it during the entire festival including the last day of the festival. Once the festival has passed he is not liable for its warranty. On that it was said, the distorted cannot be repaired and the deficient cannot be made whole.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated so that the eighth day was a separate holiday, a separate lottery, a separate benediction, a separate sacrifice. Holiday, as Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, for all of them is written and on day, but here is written on day, to teach you that it is a separate holiday. Lottery, Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” Benediction, Rebbi La said, time. Sacrifice, one bull and one ram.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says, who is distorted cannot be repaired? This is one committing incest or adultery and producing a bastard. If you would say a thief or robber, that one may repent and repair. Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, one calls distorted only what was correct before and became distorted. Who is that? This is a scholar who separated from the Torah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: When you see towns in the Land of Israel uprooted from their place, know that they did not contribute to the wages of Bible and Mishnah teachers. What is the reason? Why is the land ruined, torn down like an uninhabited wilderness? The Eternal said, because they abandoned My Torah.

Rebbi Judah the Prince sent Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Immi to tour the towns of the Land of Israel in order to give them Bible and Mishnah teachers. They came to one place where they found neither Bible nor Mishnah teacher. They said to them, bring us the watchmen of the town. They brought them the stewards of the town. They told them, these are not the watchmen of the town, they are the destroyers of the town. They asked them, and who would be the watchmen of the town? They told them, the Bible and Mishnah teachers. That is what is written, if the Eternal would not build the house, etc.

Rebbi Judah the Prince sent Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Immi to tour the towns of the Land of Israel in order to give them Bible and Mishnah teachers. They came to one place where they found neither Bible nor Mishnah teacher. They said to them, bring us the watchmen of the town. They brought them the stewards of the town. They told them, these are not the watchmen of the town, they are the destroyers of the town. They asked them, and who would be the watchmen of the town? They told them, the Bible and Mishnah teachers. That is what is written, if the Eternal would not build the house, etc.

Rebbi Judah the Prince sent Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Immi to tour the towns of the Land of Israel in order to give them Bible and Mishnah teachers. They came to one place where they found neither Bible nor Mishnah teacher. They said to them, bring us the watchmen of the town. They brought them the stewards of the town. They told them, these are not the watchmen of the town, they are the destroyers of the town. They asked them, and who would be the watchmen of the town? They told them, the Bible and Mishnah teachers. That is what is written, if the Eternal would not build the house, etc.

MISHNAH: The dissolution of vows flies in the air and has no support. The rules of the Sabbath, holiday sacrifices, and larceny on sancta are like mountains hanging on a hair, few verses and many rules. Civil law, Temple service, purity and impurity, and forbidden sexual relations have support. All of them are the body of the Torah.

Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were said as from Moses on Sinai and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abun said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known?

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written: by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel, it follows that the oral traditions are preferred. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Simeon. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: On them, and on them; all, like all; words, the words; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practices and Aggadah. Even what a competent student will discover before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? There is something about which one would say, look, this is new! His colleague will answer, it already has been forever.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things, if one added to them in error it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah, “if it was in error it is permitted, if intentional it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about addition to heave, he comes to tell you about other things. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done so one has a duty to instruct negatively about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn, always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams, and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is thus for something whose commandment is not so?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things, if one added to them in error it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah, “if it was in error it is permitted, if intentional it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about addition to heave, he comes to tell you about other things. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done so one has a duty to instruct negatively about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn, always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams, and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is thus for something whose commandment is not so?

MISHNAH: One does not explain sexual aberrations to three {persons}, nor the Creation to two, nor the Chariot to one unless he was wise and understood by himself. Anybody trying to investigate four things it would have been better for him not to have come into the world: what is above and what is below, what is before and what is after. And anybody not caring for the glory of his Creator would have been better off not to come into the world.

MISHNAH: Yose ben Yoezer says not to lean on, Yose ben Joḥanan says to lean on. Joshua ben Perahia says not to lean on, Matthew from Arbel says to lean on. Jehudah ben Tabbai says not to lean on, Simeon ben Shetah says to lean on. Shemaiah says to lean on, Avtalion says not to lean on. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree. Menaḥem left and Shammai entered; Hillel says to lean on, Shammai says not to lean on. The first ones were Patriarchs, the second Presidents of the Court.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai are saying, one brings well-being offerings and does not lean on them, but no elevation offerings. But the House of Hillel are saying one brings well-being and elevation offerings and leans on them.

MISHNAH: If Pentecost falls on a Friday, the House of Shammai are saying that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath, but the House of Hillel are saying that it has no slaughter-day. They agree that if it falls on the Sabbath that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath; the High Priest does not wear his garments, and one is permitted eulogies and fasting, in order not to support the words of those who are saying that Pentecost is on Sunday.

MISHNAH: One washes hands for profane food, tithe, and heave, but for sancta one immerses. And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

There, we have stated: “A staff which is full of impure fluids, when it touched the miqweh it is pure, the words of Rebbi Joshua. But the Sages are saying, only if he immerses it completely.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do they disagree? For easy impurity; but for severe impurity even Rebbi Joshua agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they even disagree for severe impurity. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.” Explain it about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the body of one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks is pure without special intention? From the moment he intended elevated purity he (needs) [does not need] intention. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A miqweh containing exactly 40 seah into two persons descended, [both are pure]. One after the other, the first one is pure, the second impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the feet of the first touched the water, the second one also is pure.” Still this is about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A woman in her period may rinse a radish in a cave and it is pure. If she lifted it in any way out of the water it is impure. And we have stated thereto: Rebbi Jehudah declares it pure in the name of Rebbi Joshua. And represents a menstruating woman not a severe impurity? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and it has no standing.

MISHNAH: The garments of the vulgar are “support” for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are “support” for the eaters of heave; the garments of eaters of heave are “support” for the eaters of sancta. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious of the priests but his handkerchief was “support” for sancta. Joḥanan ben Gudgada all his life ate in the purity of sancta but his handkerchief was “support” for the ashes of the Red Cow.

MISHNAH: Sancta are more stringent than heave in that one may immerse vessels inside vessels for heave but not for sancta. One considers back, inside, and finger-holes for heave but not for sancta. He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta. The garments of eaters of heave are “support” for sancta. The action for sancta is different from that for heave in that for sancta one unties before immersing whereas for heave one may tie and then immerse.

HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there, “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior.

MISHNAH: Implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave. A vessel combines its contents for sancta but not for heave. For sancta the fourth degree is disqualified and the third for heave. For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure, but for sancta he immerses both. One hand makes the other impure for sancta but not for heave.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

MISHNAH: One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta. The deep mourner and one who lacks expiation need immersion for sancta but not for heave.

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

MISHNAH: One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy about purity of wine and oil the entire year but about heave {only} at the time of grape and olive harvest. If the time of grape and olive harvest is passed and he brought him a barrel of heave wine he should not accept it but let it stay until the next grape harvest. Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy. One is trustworthy about wine and oil barrels used for heave at the time of grape and olive harvest and sixty days preceding the grape harvest.

Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, only heave prepared in the purity of sancta. Therefore not in its own. Rebbi Yose said, even if prepared in its own. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “He has to watch them until they immersed themselves.” Explain it: not in the time of the olive harvest. Could you say not in the time of the grape harvest? Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, if food prepared in purity touched it before three people used it, at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure, not at the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it before the time of olive and grape harvests the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is impure and then pure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was full the food prepared in purity remains pure. If he cleared it, the food prepared in purity becomes impure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind? But it must be the following: if food prepared in purity touched it when it was empty the food prepared in purity becomes impure. If he filled it, the food prepared in purity remains pure. Does there exist any clay vessel which is pure and then makes impure? Are not all these of the same kind?

MISHNAH: From Modiin and closer one is trustworthy about clay vessels, but from Modiin and outside one is not trustworthy. How is this? The potter who sells pots, if he is inside from Modiin then the potter, the pots, and the buyers, are trustworthy. If he left he is not trustworthy.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is about small clay vessels. The Mishnah implies this: “the potter, the pots, and the buyers.” And are pots not small clay vessels?

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is about small clay vessels. The Mishnah implies this: “the potter, the pots, and the buyers.” And are pots not small clay vessels?

If food prepared in purity touched it, from Modiin and closer the fluid made the vessel impure. If it was filled with water, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is trustworthy about the vessel but not trustworthy about the fluid. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trustworthy about both. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it about one who said, I separated it when I was fellow. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, there is no fellowship for water.

MISHNAH: Tax collectors who entered a house, and also tax collectors who returned implements, are trustworthy if they say “we did not touch”. And in Jerusalem they are trustworthy about sancta, and on holidays also about heave.

MISHNAH: If one opens a barrel, or one starts to sell his dough, on the holiday, Rebbi Jehudah says, he may finish, but the Sages say, he may not finish. After the holiday one proclaims the purity of the courtyard. If the holiday was over on a Friday one did not go over it because of the honor of the Sabbath. Rebbi Jehudah says, also not if the holiday was over on Thursday since the priests are not free.

MISHNAH: How does one proclaim the purity of the courtyard? One immerses all vessels in the Temple. There were seconds and thirds, that in case the first ones became impure one would bring the seconds in their place. All vessels in the Temple need immersion except the golden altar and the copper altar since they are like soil, the words of Rebbi Eliezer, but the Sages are saying, because they are plated.

MISHNAH: One waters irrigated plots on the holiday and in the Sabbatical year both from a well which flows newly and from a well which does not flow newly, but neither from rain water nor from pumped water, nor does one make beds for vines.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year but the Sages are saying that one makes new water canals in the Sabbatical year and one fixes the broken ones on the holiday and one repairs all defects in the public water system and cleans it. Also one repairs the roads, and the streets, and water pools, and one looks after all public needs, and marks the graves, and also goes to inspect for kilaim.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one draws water from tree to tree, but he should not water the entire orchard. Produce which was not irrigated before the holiday he may not irrigate during the holiday. However, the Sages permit in both cases.

MISHNAH: One may catch the mole and rats from an orchard or a white field normally on the holiday or in the Sabbatical; Rebbi Jehudah says from an orchard normally but from a white field with a change. One mends a breach on the holiday; but in the Sabbatical he builds normally.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict; but the Sages say, neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Meïr also said, a person may collect his father’s or mother’s bones because it is an occasion of joy. Rebbi Yose says, it is an occasion of mourning. Thirty days before the holiday one should neither memorialize nor eulogize his deceased.

MISHNAH: One does not dig niches and graves on the holiday but one may ready them for use. One makes a temporary grave and a coffin for the deceased in the courtyard; Rebbi Jehudah forbids unless he has boards ready.

MISHNAH: One does not marry women on a holiday, neither virgins nor widows, nor does one enter into levirate marriage, because it is a joy for him. But he may take back his divorcee, and a woman does adorn herself on the holiday. Rebbi Jehudah says, she may not use lime because it disfigures her.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, she may not use lime because it disfigures her.

HALAKHAH: In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, “normally”, he fills his needle. “Staples”, stitch by stitch. Rebbi Joḥanan said, “normally”, stitch by stitch. “Staples”, he jumps. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: The cobblers are stapling on the holiday. If you would say stitch by stitch, that is what they are doing professionally. But we must hold that they sew irregularly. Who is an individual and who is a professional? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one who matches seams is a professional, but any who does not match seams is an individual. Rebbi Simon said, the Mishnah refers to those who sew pockets.

“One tightens.” Rebbi Yasa said, Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. Ḥisqiah said: making a lattice, warp and woof; tightening, either warp or woof. Rebbi Joḥanan said: making a lattice, either warp or woof; tightening, if it is loose he tightens it. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, everybody agrees that making a lattice means warp and woof. Where do they disagree? About tightening. Ḥisqiah said: either warp or woof; Rebbi Joḥanan said: if it is loose he tightens it. Rebbi Yasa instructed Samuel bar Ḥanina that “making a lattice” means warp and woof. We do not know whether this follows Ḥizqiah or it follows Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: a Mishnah says so that making a lattice means warp and woof, as we have stated there, “when is the rope connected to the bed? If he plaited three boxes.” Could you say warp without woof or woof without warp? Could one pitch woof and make a lattice?

MISHNAH: One installs an oven and a stove on the holiday. Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not roughen millstones initially on the holiday. One makes a railing for the roof or the balustrade unprofessionally but not professionally. One smooths the fissures and works them with a roller, with hand, or with foot, but not with a spatula.

MISHNAH: A hinge, and a pipe, and a beam, and a lock, and a key which were broken one fixes on the holiday on condition that he not plan his work for the holiday. Any preserves of which one can eat on the holiday one makes.

“One smooths the fissures.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he who smooths, smooths with his foot; he who uses a roller smooths with the hand. Our Mishnah is about a small roller, but what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated is about a large roller.

MISHNAH: If one turned his olives over and mourning or an emergency happened to him, or he was mislead, loads the crossbar a first time and leaves it until after the holiday, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he removes the fluid, and finishes as usual.

HALAKHAH: “If one turned his olives over,” etc. We stated, “if one turned his olives over.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he whose olives were turned over repeatedly. Our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Ḥiyya, and the statement of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: “If one turned his olives over,” etc. We stated, “if one turned his olives over.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he whose olives were turned over repeatedly. Our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Ḥiyya, and the statement of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah.

Text of Scribe If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he repeatedly had turned them over, but if he turned then over once everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over once. But if he repeatedly turned them over, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya. Text of Venice editor If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he had turned them over only once, but if he turned then over repeatedly everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over repeatedly. But if he turned them over only once, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya.

Text of Scribe If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he repeatedly had turned them over, but if he turned then over once everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over once. But if he repeatedly turned them over, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya. Text of Venice editor If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he had turned them over only once, but if he turned then over repeatedly everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over repeatedly. But if he turned them over only once, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya.

Text of Scribe If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he repeatedly had turned them over, but if he turned then over once everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over once. But if he repeatedly turned them over, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya. Text of Venice editor If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he had turned them over only once, but if he turned then over repeatedly everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over repeatedly. But if he turned them over only once, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya.

Text of Scribe If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he repeatedly had turned them over, but if he turned then over once everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over once. But if he repeatedly turned them over, everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya. Text of Venice editor If we had stated but Rebbi Hiyya had not stated, we would have said, we only said if he had turned them over only once, but if he turned then over repeatedly everybody agrees that it is permitted. Therefore our Mishnah needs the statement of Rebbi Hiyya. Or if Rebbi Hiyya had stated but not we, we would have said that we only said if he turned them over repeatedly. But if he turned them over only once, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Therefore there is need for our Mishnah and need for the baraita of Rebbi Hiyya.

Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Zakkai said, our Mishnah is about macerated ones, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated is about berries. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, the Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jehudah said, small amounts may be lost so large amounts would not be lost; Rebbi Yose says, nothing at all shall be lost.

Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Zakkai said, our Mishnah is about macerated ones, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated is about berries. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, the Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jehudah said, small amounts may be lost so large amounts would not be lost; Rebbi Yose says, nothing at all shall be lost.

MISHNAH: Similarly, if his wine was in the cistern and mourning or an emergency happened to him, or he was mislead, he may stir and treat and plug normally, the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jehudah says, he makes planks for it so it should not turn into vinegar.

MISHNAH: A person may haul in his produce because of thieves and remove his flax from the steeping to avoid spoiling on condition that he not plan his work on the holiday. In all cases if they planned their work for the holiday it should spoil.

MISHNAH: One only buys houses, slaves, animals, or stones, for the needs of the holiday or for the needs of the seller who otherwise would not have anything to eat. One does not evacuate from place to place, but he may evacuate into his own courtyard since this causes him joy. One does not bring vessels from the potter’s house; but if he is afraid for them he evacuates them into another courtyard.

MISHNAH: One covers cut figs with straw; Rebbi Jehudah says, also one thickens. The sellers of produce, clothing, and vessels, sell privately for holiday needs. Hunters, grain splitters and farina millers do their work privately on the holiday. Rebbi Yose said, they restricted themselves.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: one thickens; Rebbi Jehudah said, small amounts may be lost so large amounts not be lost; Rebbi Yose says, nothing at all shall be lost. Cahana said, there are things in holidays more difficult than “tent coverings” and “skin diseases”. There, Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, one spreads a mat over rows <of any bricks> on the Sabbath. And here he says so? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: To pluck from the ground is between them. The rabbis are saying, he plucks and thickens. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may not pluck but may thicken.

MISHNAH: And the following shave on the holiday: He who comes from overseas, or from being kidnapped, or leaves jail, and one whose excommunication was lifted by the Sages, and also who asked the Sages and was permitted, and the nazir, and the sufferer from skin disease between his impurity and his purity.

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.

MISHNAH: And the following may wash on the holiday: He who comes from overseas, or from being kidnapped, or leaves jail, and one whose excommunication was lifted by the Sages, and also who asked the Sages and was permitted. Hand towels, and barber’s cloths, and body towels, and all who ascend from impurity to purity are permitted to wash, but anybody else is forbidden.