mishnah

Our Rabbis have taught: All the laws that apply to a mourner apply also to the ninth of Ab; on that day eating, drinking, bathing, anointing, wearing shoes, and cohabitation are forbidden; it is also forbidden to read in the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, or to study the Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud, Halakot and Haggadot; one may read, however, parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, and study parts of the Mishnah etc., which he was not used to study before; one may read also the Book of Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; the children are not free from school; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, one is not allowed to read even parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, nor to study parts of the Mishnah which he was not used to study before, but he may read the Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; and the children are free from school; the reason for the prohibition (of study) is that it is said (Ps., 19. 9): "The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart."

Our Rabbis have taught: All the laws that apply to a mourner apply also to the ninth of Ab; on that day eating, drinking, bathing, anointing, wearing shoes, and cohabitation are forbidden; it is also forbidden to read in the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, or to study the Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud, Halakot and Haggadot; one may read, however, parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, and study parts of the Mishnah etc., which he was not used to study before; one may read also the Book of Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; the children are not free from school; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, one is not allowed to read even parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, nor to study parts of the Mishnah which he was not used to study before, but he may read the Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; and the children are free from school; the reason for the prohibition (of study) is that it is said (Ps., 19. 9): "The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart."

Our Rabbis have taught: All the laws that apply to a mourner apply also to the ninth of Ab; on that day eating, drinking, bathing, anointing, wearing shoes, and cohabitation are forbidden; it is also forbidden to read in the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, or to study the Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud, Halakot and Haggadot; one may read, however, parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, and study parts of the Mishnah etc., which he was not used to study before; one may read also the Book of Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; the children are not free from school; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, one is not allowed to read even parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, nor to study parts of the Mishnah which he was not used to study before, but he may read the Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; and the children are free from school; the reason for the prohibition (of study) is that it is said (Ps., 19. 9): "The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart."

We read in a Mishnah (Pesaḥim, 54b): Wherever it is customary to work on the ninth of Ab, one may do so, but if it is the custom of the place not to work, one must refrain from work; scholars must abstain from work in whatever place they may happen to be; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Everybody should in this respect always conduct himself as if he were a scholar. We further read in a Baraita: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, one should always conduct himself as a scholar (and abstain from work), so that he may be more conscious of his fast; Rabban Gamaliel said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, is as if he ate on the Day of Atonement; R. 'Aḳiba said, he who works on the ninth of Ab will never see a sign of blessing (success); the other Sages said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, will not live to see the rejoicing of Jerusalem, for it is said (Is., 66. 10): "Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her"—that is to say, all those who mourn for her will witness her rejoicing, while those who do not mourn for her, will not witness her rejoicing; moreover, of him who eats meat and drinks wine on the ninth of Ab, Scripture says (Ezek., 32. 27): "And their iniquities are upon their bones."

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This [rule stated in the Mishnah] is the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous sage who draws the distinction between “time”, “their time” and “their times”, but according to the Sages the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day.

Our Mishnah is not like the view of the following Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Joshua b. Korha says: Cities which have been walled since the days of Ahashverosh read on the fifteenth.”.

They thought this means that t hey should read the Megillah at night, and teach the Mishnah [about it] in the morning. Jeremiah said to them: It has been explained to me by R. Hiyya b. Abba [that the word “repeat” here has the same meaning] as when, for instance, people say, I will go through this section and repeat it.

How [does this work out]? If it falls on Monday, villages and larger towns read on that same day etc. Why is it that in the first clause of the Mishnah the dates of the month are mentioned and in the second the days of the week?

Since the dates of the month would have to go backwards, the Mishnah prefers to mention the days.

If it falls on Friday etc. Whom does our Mishnah follow? [You may say], either Rabbi or R. Yose.

Whom does the Mishnah follow? Neither the First Tanna nor R. Eliezer son of R. Yose nor R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, as it has been taught: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was then intercalated they read in the second Adar, since all the mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar are performed in the first, except the reading of the Megillah.

Which authority then [does our Mishnah follow]? If [you say] the First Tanna, there is the difficulty of gifts. If [you say] R. Eliezer son of R. Yose, there is the difficulty of the reading of the Megillah also. If [you say] R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, there is the difficulty of the series of special portions.

Or if you want, I can say that in fact it is R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, and there is an omission in our Mishnah and this is what it means: There is no difference between the fourteenth of the first Adar and the fourteenth of the second Adar except for reading the Megillah and gifts to the poor. From which we infer that in regard to mourning and fasting they are the same, but it doesn’t mention the special portions.

Mishnah. There is no difference between festivals and Shabbat except in the matter of [preparing] food.

The Mishnah does not follow R. Judah, as it has been taught: There is no difference between festivals and Shabbat except in the matter of [preparing] food. R. Judah permits [on the festivals] even the preliminaries for preparing food.

Mishnah. There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur except that the deliberate violation of the one is punished by a human court and the deliberate violation of the other by karet.

Whose view does the Mishnah follow? That of R. Nehunia b. HaKaneh, as it has been taught: R. Nehunia b. HaKaneh used to make Yom Kippur the same as Shabbat in respect of compensation: just as [one who deliberately breaks] Shabbat forfeits his life but is exempt from compensation, so too [one who deliberately breaks] Yom Kippur forfeits his life but is exempt from compensation.

Mishnah: There is no difference between one who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from his fellow and one who is prohibited by vow from [benefiting from] his food, except for setting foot [on his property] and vessels which are not used for [preparing] food.

Mishnah: There is no difference between vowed offerings and freewill-offerings except that he is responsible for vowed offering but not responsible for freewill-offerings.

the one statement [that of the Mishnah] speaks of [books written in] our script, the other of [books written in] their script.

Rather, there is no contradiction: the one statement [in the Mishnah] represents the view of the rabbis, the other that of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel.

But if it is the view of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, what about Greek? Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the Mishnah] refers to scrolls, the other to tefillin and mezuzahs.

The mishnah does not accord with R. Meir; for with regard to the view of R. Meir, it has been taught: ‘One who wears the additional garments [without having been anointed] brings the bull which is offered [by the High Priest] for the [unwitting breaking of] any of the mitzvoth, the words of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that he does not offer it.

How have you explained [the Mishnah]? As not agreeing with R. Meir. What about the end of the mishnah: There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah. But we can infer that in all other matters they are the same; and so we come to the view of R. Meir, as it has been taught, If something happened to disqualify him and they appointed another priest to take his place, when the first returns to his service the second is still liable to all the obligations of the high priesthood, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said: The first returns to his service whereas the second is not qualified to act as a high priest or as an ordinary priest.

How have you explained [the Mishnah]? As not agreeing with R. Meir. What about the end of the mishnah: There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah. But we can infer that in all other matters they are the same; and so we come to the view of R. Meir, as it has been taught, If something happened to disqualify him and they appointed another priest to take his place, when the first returns to his service the second is still liable to all the obligations of the high priesthood, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said: The first returns to his service whereas the second is not qualified to act as a high priest or as an ordinary priest.

as a high priest, so as not to create enmity, as an ordinary priest, because raise to a higher grade of holiness but we never put down to a lower. Are we then to say that the first clause [of the Mishnah] follows the Sages and the second R. Meir?

If that is the case, why do Rav and Shmuel explain the Mishnah to refer to the Greek vernacular? Let them make it refer to any vernacular? — Rather the Mishnah agrees with the baraita, and the statement of Rav and Shmuel was meant to be a general one: Rav and Shmuel both say that the Greek vernacular is good for all peoples.

If that is the case, why do Rav and Shmuel explain the Mishnah to refer to the Greek vernacular? Let them make it refer to any vernacular? — Rather the Mishnah agrees with the baraita, and the statement of Rav and Shmuel was meant to be a general one: Rav and Shmuel both say that the Greek vernacular is good for all peoples.

Rather a Megillah lies before him and he reads from it, verse by verse, and then writes. Shall we then say that this supports Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to write one letter [of the Megillah], not from another written copy? Perhaps [the Mishnah speaks of a case] where he just happened [to have a copy before him].

But how do we know that [our Mishnah] follows R. Yose and even if the deaf person has read, it does not count? Perhaps it follows R. Judah, and [what it means is that] the deaf person should not read, but if he has read, his reading is accepted?

(But perhaps the whole of the Mishnah states the opinions of R. Judah? — Is it possible that he should disqualify in the first and permit in the second?)

But perhaps the whole [of the Mishnah] is R. Judah, and he teaches of two kinds of minors, and the Mishnah is lacking and it should teach this: All are qualified to read the Megillah, except a deaf man, an imbecile and a minor. What is this speaking of? Of a minor who is not old enough to be educated in the mitzvot. But a minor who is old enough to be educated in the mitzvot may read even ab initio, since R. Judah declares a minor qualified!

But perhaps the whole [of the Mishnah] is R. Judah, and he teaches of two kinds of minors, and the Mishnah is lacking and it should teach this: All are qualified to read the Megillah, except a deaf man, an imbecile and a minor. What is this speaking of? Of a minor who is not old enough to be educated in the mitzvot. But a minor who is old enough to be educated in the mitzvot may read even ab initio, since R. Judah declares a minor qualified!

How then have you explained [the first clause of the Mishnah]? Like R. Judah and ex post facto.

Mishnah: They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.

Gemara. From where do we know this? Because the verse says, “And these days should be remembered and kept” (Esther 9:28) by day, but not by night. Shall we say that this is a refutation of R. Joshua b. Levi; for R. Joshua b. Levi said: One must read the Megillah by night and a second time by day? When the mishnah taught it, it referred to the day.

But according to R. Ashi, who is the author of the Mishnah? It is neither the First Tanna nor R. Yose, as it has been taught: If it [the ninth of Av] falls on Monday or Thursday, three read and one [of them] says a haftarah. If on Tuesday or Wednesday, one reads and [the same] one says the haftarah. R. Yose, however, says that in all cases three read and one [of them] says the haftarah.

The Mishnah] is merely giving a sign that you should not say that the festivals and the intermediate days have the same rule, but rather you should take this general principle in your hands: For every additional distinguishing mark an additional person reads.

On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six etc. Whose view is that of the Mishnah? It is neither R. Ishmael nor R. Akiba, as it has been taught: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six, and on Shabbat seven. They may not decrease or increase this number, the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiva says: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur seven and on Shabbat six. They may not decrease this number, but they may increase it.

Whom [does the Mishnah follow]? If R. Ishmael, it conflicts with him over the additional number, if R. Akiva, it conflicts with him over the question of six and seven!

Papa said: The Mishnah is speaking only of those which are made as round as a nut.

Come and hear: But if they sell, a Torah they may not buy scrolls; it is scrolls that they may not buy, but if they buy a Torah with the proceeds from the sale of a Torah it is okay! [No.] The Mishnah refers to something already done, and the question we asked was whether it is permitted?

Abaye said to a one of the rabbinical students who used to arrange his mishnah in front of R. Sheshet: Have you ever heard from R. Shesheth what is meant by dukhsusya? He replied: This is what R. Shesheth said: The town horseman.

we do not adorn ourselves in them, nor stroll about in them, nor go into them in summer to escape the heat or in the rainy season to escape the rain, nor to deliver a private eulogy in them. But we read [the Scriptures] in them and repeat the Mishnah in them and deliver public funeral addresses in them.

Aha the son of Rava asked R. Ashi: If a person needs to call another out of a synagogue, what is he to do? He said: If he is a rabbinical scholar, let him say some halakhah; if he is a tanna, let him recite a mishnah; if he is a kara, let him say a verse of Scripture; if none of these, let him say to a child, “Tell me your verse.” If not, let him stay a little while and then get up.

One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah? [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah. Resh Lakish thereupon said: You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder? Throw the son of Lakish into the water!

One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah? [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah. Resh Lakish thereupon said: You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder? Throw the son of Lakish into the water!

One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah? [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah. Resh Lakish thereupon said: You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder? Throw the son of Lakish into the water!

Sheshet said: The taking away of Torah [study] should correspond to its giving: just as it was given in the presence of sixty myriads, so to it should be taken away only in the presence of sixty myriads. This applies to one who read Scripture and recited Mishnah; but for one who [also] taught the Mishnah there is no limit.

Sheshet said: The taking away of Torah [study] should correspond to its giving: just as it was given in the presence of sixty myriads, so to it should be taken away only in the presence of sixty myriads. This applies to one who read Scripture and recited Mishnah; but for one who [also] taught the Mishnah there is no limit.

If grass has grown in it, he should not pluck it, so as not to arouse distress. But it has been taught: He should not pluck it and give it as food [to cattle], but he pluck it and leave it there. The statement in our Mishnah also refers to plucking and giving it for food.

GEMARA. We have learned in another place (Mishnah Shekalim 2:1): On the first of Adar they make a proclamation with regard to the shekels

Sheftiah further said in the name of R. Yohanan: If one reads [Scripture] without a melody or recites the Mishnah without a tune, of him the verse says, “For I gave them also statutes that were not good.” (Ezekiel 20:25).

And, if you like, I will fully grant you what they have said from the beginning. But you will say, Rabena's saying constitutes a difficulty. There is no difficulty. One opinion is according to the older Mishnah, the other according to the later Mishnah.

And, if you like, I will fully grant you what they have said from the beginning. But you will say, Rabena's saying constitutes a difficulty. There is no difficulty. One opinion is according to the older Mishnah, the other according to the later Mishnah.

For there is a canonical Mishnah, He who is half a slave and half free serves his master one day and himself the other day (Baba Bathra, 13a, i. 11). These are the words of the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai said to them,

Except a deaf man, a fool, and a child etc. There is a Baraitha, A deaf man is like a fool and a child. As a fool and a child are not responsible for their actions, so a deaf man is not responsible for his actions. And we learn, as we are taught by a canonical Mishnah, A deaf man, as wise men have everywhere said, is one who does not hear and does not speak (Niddah, 13b, ii. 17). Lo, you will say then, He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. Yes, for there is a Baraitha for this. For our Rabbis have taught, He who speaks and does not hear is deaf, he who hears and does not speak is dumb. Both one and the other are to be treated as capable persons in all that relates to them. And whence do you infer that he who speaks and does not hear is deaf, and that he who hears and does not speak is dumb? Since it is written, "But I as a deaf man hear not; and I am as a dumb man, who openeth not his mouth" (Ps. xxxviii. 14). And, if you like, I will say, according to the proverbial saying, A man stumbling in his words. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. But, lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt. Rabena, or it may have been Rabba, said, There is a hiatus here. And there is a Baraitha to this effect, All are bound as regards the holocaust, and as regards the rejoicing, except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt from the holocaust. But although he is exempt from the holocaust, he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak, and as for a fool and a child, he is exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law.

And one of doubtful sex and one of double sex etc. Our Rabbis have taught, The use of the word, "male," is to exclude the women; "thy males" to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex; "all thy males" to include the children (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). The Mishnah teacher said, Male is to exclude the women. But why do I need a verse as above, to teach me this? Inasmuch as it is a case of a positive precept in which the time determines. And from all positive precepts in which the time determines, women are exempt. Nay, but it is needed. You might have thought, We learn of a twofold appearing before the Lord from the section, "Assemble." As in the one case women are bound, so in the other case women are bound. We learn it from this.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "thy males" is to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex. It is all right as regards the latter. This was necessary. You might have imagined that, since he has a shred of virility, he is bound. We learn from this that his case is one sui generis. But as for the former, this was a dubious case. How was a verse necessary to remove the doubt? Abai said, Si eius ovaria externa sunt.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "all thy males" is to include the children. But there is a canonical Mishnah, Except a deaf man, a fool and a child (Chag. 2a, i. 1). Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with a child who has reached the age for initiation in the law, the other with a child who has not reached the age for initiation. A child who has reached the age for initiation—this is Rabbinical only. Even so, and the expression is a mere supporting peg. But why does the expression come? To correspond with what the others said. For we have a Baraitha, Others say, the cordwainer and the smelter in bronze and the tanner are exempt from the holocaust, because it is said "all thy males" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who is able to go up with all thy males. They are exempt, who are not fit to go up with all thy males.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "all thy males" is to include the children. But there is a canonical Mishnah, Except a deaf man, a fool and a child (Chag. 2a, i. 1). Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with a child who has reached the age for initiation in the law, the other with a child who has not reached the age for initiation. A child who has reached the age for initiation—this is Rabbinical only. Even so, and the expression is a mere supporting peg. But why does the expression come? To correspond with what the others said. For we have a Baraitha, Others say, the cordwainer and the smelter in bronze and the tanner are exempt from the holocaust, because it is said "all thy males" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who is able to go up with all thy males. They are exempt, who are not fit to go up with all thy males.

Women and slaves who are not manumitted etc. This is all right as regards women, as we have said, but slaves—how do we get them here? R. Hunna says, The scripture says "before the LORD God" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). This expression can only apply to him who has but one Lord. He is excluded who has another lord. But why do I need a verse for it? Surely by every precept by which a woman is bound a slave is bound, and by every precept by which a woman is not bound a slave is not bound. The teacher learns it from the case of a woman through the double occurrence of the words "unto her." Rabena said, It is only needed for one who is half a slave and half free. This is precisely too what the teaching of the Mishnah is, women and slaves who are not manumitted. What is the meaning of the addition, who are not manumitted? If I should say that it means, who are not manumitted at all, then the words ought to be simply, slaves, but do you not think that it means, those who are not completely manumitted? and who are such? He who is half a slave and half free. Learn from this the meaning.

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

"Neither is there any peace to him that goeth out or to him that cometh in" (Zech. viii. 10). Rab says, It means when a man leaves off from speaking Halachah to speak Bible only, he has no more peace; but Samuel said, This is he who deserts the Talmud for Mishnah. But R. Jochanan said, Even if he go from one Talmud to the other.

Trespasses. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Ramai bar Chama said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the following Mishnah, If the messenger has done his commission, it is the master of the house who has trespassed; if the messenger has not done his commission, the messenger has trespassed (Kiddushin, 42b, ii. 12, N'darim, 54a, ii. 7, M'ila, 20a, ii. 13, K'thuboth, 28b, ii. 16). But if he has done his commission, how has the master trespassed? And is it possible that the one should be guilty and the other liable to the punishment? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rabba said, But what is the difficulty? Perhaps a trespass is different. But one learns the law on this subject from the analogy of the two words, viz., "sin" in the present case, and "sin" used of the heave-offering. As in the one case, the man's messenger represents him, so in the other the man's messenger represents him. But Rabba said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the Baraitha, The master of the house remembered and the messenger did not remember. The messenger has trespassed. What then has the poor messenger done? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rab Ashi said, What is the difficulty? Perhaps it is more difficult than in the case of one who takes sacred money for ordinary uses. But Rab Ashi said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the canonical Mishnah, If a man have taken a stone or a beam of the sanctuary, behold, he has not trespassed. If he have given it to his neighbour, he has trespassed, but his neighbour has not trespassed (M'ilah, 9b, ii. 16, Baba Kamma, 20b, ii. 24, Baba M'tsia', 99b, ii. 3). But most assuredly he has appropriated it. What is it to me whether it be the man himself or his neighbour? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is in accordance with the words of Samuel. For Samuel said, It is thus in the case

Trespasses. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Ramai bar Chama said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the following Mishnah, If the messenger has done his commission, it is the master of the house who has trespassed; if the messenger has not done his commission, the messenger has trespassed (Kiddushin, 42b, ii. 12, N'darim, 54a, ii. 7, M'ila, 20a, ii. 13, K'thuboth, 28b, ii. 16). But if he has done his commission, how has the master trespassed? And is it possible that the one should be guilty and the other liable to the punishment? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rabba said, But what is the difficulty? Perhaps a trespass is different. But one learns the law on this subject from the analogy of the two words, viz., "sin" in the present case, and "sin" used of the heave-offering. As in the one case, the man's messenger represents him, so in the other the man's messenger represents him. But Rabba said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the Baraitha, The master of the house remembered and the messenger did not remember. The messenger has trespassed. What then has the poor messenger done? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. Rab Ashi said, What is the difficulty? Perhaps it is more difficult than in the case of one who takes sacred money for ordinary uses. But Rab Ashi said, It was only necessary in order to agree with the canonical Mishnah, If a man have taken a stone or a beam of the sanctuary, behold, he has not trespassed. If he have given it to his neighbour, he has trespassed, but his neighbour has not trespassed (M'ilah, 9b, ii. 16, Baba Kamma, 20b, ii. 24, Baba M'tsia', 99b, ii. 3). But most assuredly he has appropriated it. What is it to me whether it be the man himself or his neighbour? This is as mountains suspended by a hair. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is in accordance with the words of Samuel. For Samuel said, It is thus in the case

Temple Services. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. It was only necessary with a view to the bringing of the blood. For there is a Baraitha, "and they shall present" (Lev. i. 5). This is the receiving of the blood. And the Merciful One expressed it by a word which denotes "bringing," as it is written, "And the priest shall present the whole and shall burn it upon the altar" (Lev. i. 13). But the Mishnah teacher said, This refers to the bringing of limbs to the steps, and the object of the passage is to shew that the bringing did not take it out of the genus receiving.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

What are we to say of the word "heavens"? R. Jose bar Chănina said, It means the place where there is water. In a Kabbalistic Mishnah it is explained as equivalent to fire and water, thus teaching that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them and mingled them one with the other, and made from them the firmament.

Fiery beings who speak. In a Kabbalistic Mishnah we are taught that it means, At times they are silent and at times they speak; at the time that the utterance goeth forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and at the time that the utterance goeth not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. "And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning" (Ezek. i. 14). What is the meaning of "ran and returned?" R. Jehudah said, As the light which goeth forth from the mouth of the furnace. What is the meaning of "as the appearance of a flash of lightning?" R. Jose bar Chănina said, Like the flame that goeth forth from between the potsherds. "And I looked, and, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud, with a fire infolding itself, and a brightness round about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire" (Ezek. i. 4). Whither did it go? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, It went forth to subdue the whole world under the wicked Nebuchadnezzar. And wherefore was all this done? That the peoples of the world might not say, The Holy One, blessed be He, delivered His children into the hand of a mean people. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, What forced me to minister to worshippers of carved images? The iniquities of Israel, they forced me.

"Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth beside the living creatures" (Ezek. i. 15). R. El'azar said, It means a certain angel, who stands upon the earth and his head reaches to the level of the living creatures. In a Kabbalistic Mishnah we are taught that his name is Sandalphon, who is higher than his fellows by the space of a journey of five hundred years, and he stands behind the chariot and binds crowns for his Maker. Is it so? But there is the passage, "Blessed be the glory of the LORD from his place" (Ezek. iii. 12). Strictly speaking, His place it is impossible to know, but he utters the Name over the wreath and thereupon it goes and rests by His head.

Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage "I will sing unto the LORD, for he is highly exalted" (Exod. xv. 1)? It means a song to Him who takes His place proudly above the high, as the Mishnah teacher said, The king among living creatures is a lion, the king among domestic beasts is an ox, the king among birds is an eagle, but man takes his place proudly above them, and the Holy One, blessed be He, takes His place proudly above them all, and above the whole world in its entirety.

There is a passage which says, "His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool" (Dan. vii. 9), and yet it is written, "His locks are curling and black as a raven" (Cant. v. 11). There is no difficulty. The one is the case where He is engaged in session, the other where He is engaged in war. For the Mishnah teacher said, No one, look you, is nobler in session than an old man, and no one, look you, is nobler in war than a youth. One passage says, "His throne was fiery flames," but another says, "till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit" (Dan. vii. 9). There is no difficulty, One throne is for Him and one for David. As says a Baraitha, viz., One for him and one for David. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. Jose the Galilaean said to him, Akiba, how long dost thou shew irreverence to the Shechinah? Nay, but one is for judgment and one for grace. Was he convinced by him, or was he not? Come and hear. One is for judgment and one for grace. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. El'azar ben Azariah said to him, Akiba, what hast thou to do with Haggadah? Be off. Thy sayings have to do with stripes and bitters. But the real meaning is that one is for a throne and one for a footstool; a throne that He may sit upon it, and a footstool as the resting-place for His feet, as it is said, "The heaven is my throne and the earth is the resting-place of my feet" (Is. lxvi. 1).

When R. Dimi came, he said, Eighteen curses did Isaiah pronounce upon Israel, and he was not satisfied until he had spoken against them this passage, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). Eighteen curses, what are they? As it is written, "For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water; the mighty man and the man of war; the judge and the prophet and the diviner and the elder; the captain of fifty and the man of influence, and the counsellor, and the wise among artificers, and the instructed whisperer. And I will give children to be their princes and suckers out shall rule over them, etc." (Is. iii. 1-4) "Stay"—these are the learned in the Law, "staff"—these are the learned in Mishnah, e.g., R. Jehudah ben Tema and his fellows. R. Papa and our Rabbis differ in respect of this. One says, there are six hundred divisions of Mishnah, and another says there are seven hundred divisions of Mishnah. "The whole stay of bread"—these are the learned in Talmud, as it is said, "Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Prov. ix. 5). "And the whole stay of water"—these are the learned in Agadah, who draw out the heart of man like water by means of Agadah. "The mighty man"—this is the man learned in oral tradition. "And the man of war"—this is he who knows how to handle matters in the battle of the Law. "The judge"—this is a magistrate who gives true decisions faithfully. "The prophet"—this is what the word itself conveys. "The diviner"—this is a king, as it is said, "Divination is in the lips of the king" (Prov. xvi. 10). "The elder"—this is he who is worthy to sit as a teacher presiding over an Academy. "Captain of fifty"—do not read "captain of fifty," but captain of fifths. This is he who knows how to handle matters in the five sections of the Law. There is another explanation of "Captain of fifty" according to R. Abohu; for R. Abohu says, Hence we learn that an interpreter is not appointed over the congregation, who is less than fifty years old. "And the man of influence"—this is he on whose account his generation has influence above in the courts of heaven, e.g., R. Chănina ben Dosa, or below on earth, e.g., R. Abohu in the household of Caesar. "The counsellor"—one who knows how to intercalate years and to fix months. "And the wise"—this is the disciple who makes his teachers wise. "Artificers"—at the time that he is unfolding the words of the Law, all are made like deaf men. "And instructed"—this is he who draws instruction from the heart of a matter. "Whisperer"—this is he to whom it is fitting to impart the words of the Law, which is given in a whisper. "And I will give children to be their princes." What is the meaning of the words, "And I will give children to be their princes"? R. El'azar said, These are the children of men who are empty of good works. "And suckers out shall rule over them." R. Papa bar Jacob said, Foxes, sons of foxes. And he was not satisfied, until he had said to them, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). These are the children of men who are empty of good works. They shall behave themselves proudly against him who is filled with good works as a pomegranate. "And the base against the honourable." Let him come, to whom heavy sins are like light, and behave himself proudly against him to whom light are like heavy.

When R. Dimi came, he said, Eighteen curses did Isaiah pronounce upon Israel, and he was not satisfied until he had spoken against them this passage, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). Eighteen curses, what are they? As it is written, "For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water; the mighty man and the man of war; the judge and the prophet and the diviner and the elder; the captain of fifty and the man of influence, and the counsellor, and the wise among artificers, and the instructed whisperer. And I will give children to be their princes and suckers out shall rule over them, etc." (Is. iii. 1-4) "Stay"—these are the learned in the Law, "staff"—these are the learned in Mishnah, e.g., R. Jehudah ben Tema and his fellows. R. Papa and our Rabbis differ in respect of this. One says, there are six hundred divisions of Mishnah, and another says there are seven hundred divisions of Mishnah. "The whole stay of bread"—these are the learned in Talmud, as it is said, "Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Prov. ix. 5). "And the whole stay of water"—these are the learned in Agadah, who draw out the heart of man like water by means of Agadah. "The mighty man"—this is the man learned in oral tradition. "And the man of war"—this is he who knows how to handle matters in the battle of the Law. "The judge"—this is a magistrate who gives true decisions faithfully. "The prophet"—this is what the word itself conveys. "The diviner"—this is a king, as it is said, "Divination is in the lips of the king" (Prov. xvi. 10). "The elder"—this is he who is worthy to sit as a teacher presiding over an Academy. "Captain of fifty"—do not read "captain of fifty," but captain of fifths. This is he who knows how to handle matters in the five sections of the Law. There is another explanation of "Captain of fifty" according to R. Abohu; for R. Abohu says, Hence we learn that an interpreter is not appointed over the congregation, who is less than fifty years old. "And the man of influence"—this is he on whose account his generation has influence above in the courts of heaven, e.g., R. Chănina ben Dosa, or below on earth, e.g., R. Abohu in the household of Caesar. "The counsellor"—one who knows how to intercalate years and to fix months. "And the wise"—this is the disciple who makes his teachers wise. "Artificers"—at the time that he is unfolding the words of the Law, all are made like deaf men. "And instructed"—this is he who draws instruction from the heart of a matter. "Whisperer"—this is he to whom it is fitting to impart the words of the Law, which is given in a whisper. "And I will give children to be their princes." What is the meaning of the words, "And I will give children to be their princes"? R. El'azar said, These are the children of men who are empty of good works. "And suckers out shall rule over them." R. Papa bar Jacob said, Foxes, sons of foxes. And he was not satisfied, until he had said to them, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). These are the children of men who are empty of good works. They shall behave themselves proudly against him who is filled with good works as a pomegranate. "And the base against the honourable." Let him come, to whom heavy sins are like light, and behave himself proudly against him to whom light are like heavy.

When R. Dimi came, he said, Eighteen curses did Isaiah pronounce upon Israel, and he was not satisfied until he had spoken against them this passage, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). Eighteen curses, what are they? As it is written, "For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water; the mighty man and the man of war; the judge and the prophet and the diviner and the elder; the captain of fifty and the man of influence, and the counsellor, and the wise among artificers, and the instructed whisperer. And I will give children to be their princes and suckers out shall rule over them, etc." (Is. iii. 1-4) "Stay"—these are the learned in the Law, "staff"—these are the learned in Mishnah, e.g., R. Jehudah ben Tema and his fellows. R. Papa and our Rabbis differ in respect of this. One says, there are six hundred divisions of Mishnah, and another says there are seven hundred divisions of Mishnah. "The whole stay of bread"—these are the learned in Talmud, as it is said, "Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Prov. ix. 5). "And the whole stay of water"—these are the learned in Agadah, who draw out the heart of man like water by means of Agadah. "The mighty man"—this is the man learned in oral tradition. "And the man of war"—this is he who knows how to handle matters in the battle of the Law. "The judge"—this is a magistrate who gives true decisions faithfully. "The prophet"—this is what the word itself conveys. "The diviner"—this is a king, as it is said, "Divination is in the lips of the king" (Prov. xvi. 10). "The elder"—this is he who is worthy to sit as a teacher presiding over an Academy. "Captain of fifty"—do not read "captain of fifty," but captain of fifths. This is he who knows how to handle matters in the five sections of the Law. There is another explanation of "Captain of fifty" according to R. Abohu; for R. Abohu says, Hence we learn that an interpreter is not appointed over the congregation, who is less than fifty years old. "And the man of influence"—this is he on whose account his generation has influence above in the courts of heaven, e.g., R. Chănina ben Dosa, or below on earth, e.g., R. Abohu in the household of Caesar. "The counsellor"—one who knows how to intercalate years and to fix months. "And the wise"—this is the disciple who makes his teachers wise. "Artificers"—at the time that he is unfolding the words of the Law, all are made like deaf men. "And instructed"—this is he who draws instruction from the heart of a matter. "Whisperer"—this is he to whom it is fitting to impart the words of the Law, which is given in a whisper. "And I will give children to be their princes." What is the meaning of the words, "And I will give children to be their princes"? R. El'azar said, These are the children of men who are empty of good works. "And suckers out shall rule over them." R. Papa bar Jacob said, Foxes, sons of foxes. And he was not satisfied, until he had said to them, "The child shall behave himself proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable" (Is. iii. 5). These are the children of men who are empty of good works. They shall behave themselves proudly against him who is filled with good works as a pomegranate. "And the base against the honourable." Let him come, to whom heavy sins are like light, and behave himself proudly against him to whom light are like heavy.

R. Kattinah said, Even at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem there did not cease from them faithful men, as it is said, "When a man shall take hold of his brother in the house of his father, saying, Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler" (Is. iii. 6). Let things which are hid from the children of men, as a garment hides, be under thy hand. "And this ruin." What is the meaning of the expression "and this ruin"? Words which the children of men cannot understand, but if one tries, he stumbles over them, they are under thy hand. "In that day shall he swear, saying, I am not an healer, for in my house is neither bread nor clothing. Ye shall not make me ruler of the people" (Is. iii. 7). "Shall he swear" is simply a term expressing an oath, as it is said, "Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the LORD thy God" (Exod. xx. 7). "I am not an healer," i.e., I have not been of those that heal a college. "For in my house is neither bread nor clothing," i.e., There is not in my hand either Torah or Mishnah or Gemara. And perhaps it is different here. For if he had said to them, I teach Gemara, they would have said to him, Tell us something. But no, he cannot have feared detection, for he might have said, that he had learned it but had now forgotten. What is the meaning of the words "I am not an healer"? They mean, I am not a healer at all. But, after all, behold Rabba said, Jerusalem was not laid waste till there ceased from it honest men, as it is said, "Run ye to and fro in the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that doeth justly, that seeketh truth, and I will pardon her" (Jer. v. 1). There is no difficulty.

Samuel came upon R. Jehudah, who was swinging upon the bolt of a door, and weeping. He said to him, Oh, clever one, why weepest thou? He said to him, Is it a small thing that is written concerning our Rabbis, "Where is he that counted, where is he that weighed, where is he that counted the towers?" (Is. xxxiii. 18) "Where is he that counted?" for they counted all the letters that are in the Books of the Law. "Where is he that weighed?" for they weighed the light and the heavy things which are in the Law. "Where is he that counted the towers?" for they taught three hundred doctrines concerning the tower which flies in the air. And R. Ami said, Three hundred questions were treated by Doeg and Ahithophel concerning the tower which flies in the air. And there is a canonical Mishnah. Three kings and four private persons have no position in the world to come (Sanhedrin, 90a, ii. 22), and we—what will there be for us? He said to him, Oh, clever one, there was uncleanness in their hearts.

But as for the case of transferable offerings, they are transferable as from the first day. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., He who has not kept the Feast on the first high holiday of the festival, nevertheless keeps all the festival, even up to the last high holiday (Chag. 9a, i. 5, Beytsah 20b, i. 23, Rosh ha-Shanah 4b, ii. 13). If thou layest hold on much, thou dost not hold it, if thou layest hold on a little, thou holdest it. But with a view to what teaching has the All-merciful One written the Feast of Tabernacles? It is in order to compare it with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As the Feast of Unleavened Bread requires remaining over night, so the Feast of Tabernacles requires remaining over night. And whence do we get that?

There is a canonical Mishnah, In the case of the day of Pentecost which falls upon the eve of a Sabbath, the house of Shammai say, The day for sacrificing is after the Sabbath, but the house of Hillel say, There is no day for sacrificing (Chag. 17a, i. 6). Do you not think that it means that there is no day at all for sacrificing? No; it cannot mean that a day for sacrificing is not necessary. What then does it mean? We learn from this that we are to bring the sacrifice on its own day? But how can this be? for they have discussed this point once already, for we have a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings on a festival and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Chag. 17a, i. 3). I reply, No; there is no superfluity. For the passage is necessary. For, if he had let me hear only the second paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Shammai insist that men are not to sacrifice on the day of Pentecost, because it is possible to do so on the morrow, but, unless I had a distinct paragraph to the contrary, I should have said thus, They agree as regards the possibility of doing it on the morrow with the house of Hillel; and if he had let me hear only the first paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Hillel say that men may sacrifice because it is impossible to do so on the morrow, but according to this I should have said, They agree as regards the impossibility of doing it on the morrow, with the house of Shammai. Hence the second paragraph was necessary.

There is a canonical Mishnah, In the case of the day of Pentecost which falls upon the eve of a Sabbath, the house of Shammai say, The day for sacrificing is after the Sabbath, but the house of Hillel say, There is no day for sacrificing (Chag. 17a, i. 6). Do you not think that it means that there is no day at all for sacrificing? No; it cannot mean that a day for sacrificing is not necessary. What then does it mean? We learn from this that we are to bring the sacrifice on its own day? But how can this be? for they have discussed this point once already, for we have a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings on a festival and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Chag. 17a, i. 3). I reply, No; there is no superfluity. For the passage is necessary. For, if he had let me hear only the second paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Shammai insist that men are not to sacrifice on the day of Pentecost, because it is possible to do so on the morrow, but, unless I had a distinct paragraph to the contrary, I should have said thus, They agree as regards the possibility of doing it on the morrow with the house of Hillel; and if he had let me hear only the first paragraph, I should not have doubted through hearing it only, that the house of Hillel say that men may sacrifice because it is impossible to do so on the morrow, but according to this I should have said, They agree as regards the impossibility of doing it on the morrow, with the house of Shammai. Hence the second paragraph was necessary.

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

And what is your authority for saying that common food does not want intention? Because there is a canonical Mishnah, If a wave of water, which is let loose and contains forty seahs, falls upon a man or upon vessels, they are clean (Chullin 31b, i. 1). For it teaches that a man is like vessels. As vessels have no intention, so a man has no intention. But whence do you gather that he has no intention? Perhaps we are dealing with the case of a man sitting and watching when the wave shall be let loose. And vessels are like a man. As a man utters his intention, so in the case of vessels persons exercise intention for them. And when thou sayest, It is the case of a man sitting and watching, what is the good of the story, for in that case he has an intention? Thou mightest have thought, It is to set a limit. Perhaps otherwise he would have gone to dip himself in a collection of stagnant rain-water. Thus also we limit it to the first fall, on account of the second being unlawful. We learn from this that we are not to limit it. And what is your authority for saying that men do not dip in the second fall? Because there is a Baraitha, viz., Men dip in the first, but do not dip in the second, that they may not dip in the air. But we also learn it hence, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If fruits have fallen into the midst of a reservoir of water, and if one whose hands are unclean should reach out and lay hold of them, his hands are clean, and the fruits are clean. But if he did this that he might wash his hands, his hands are clean, but the fruits are unclean (Makhshirin, iv. 7).

And what is your authority for saying that common food does not want intention? Because there is a canonical Mishnah, If a wave of water, which is let loose and contains forty seahs, falls upon a man or upon vessels, they are clean (Chullin 31b, i. 1). For it teaches that a man is like vessels. As vessels have no intention, so a man has no intention. But whence do you gather that he has no intention? Perhaps we are dealing with the case of a man sitting and watching when the wave shall be let loose. And vessels are like a man. As a man utters his intention, so in the case of vessels persons exercise intention for them. And when thou sayest, It is the case of a man sitting and watching, what is the good of the story, for in that case he has an intention? Thou mightest have thought, It is to set a limit. Perhaps otherwise he would have gone to dip himself in a collection of stagnant rain-water. Thus also we limit it to the first fall, on account of the second being unlawful. We learn from this that we are not to limit it. And what is your authority for saying that men do not dip in the second fall? Because there is a Baraitha, viz., Men dip in the first, but do not dip in the second, that they may not dip in the air. But we also learn it hence, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If fruits have fallen into the midst of a reservoir of water, and if one whose hands are unclean should reach out and lay hold of them, his hands are clean, and the fruits are clean. But if he did this that he might wash his hands, his hands are clean, but the fruits are unclean (Makhshirin, iv. 7).

Rabbah put this question to R. Nachman, Thou saidst, He who dips for common food and has credit for common food, is forbidden tithe. If he claims credit, he has it; if he does not claim credit, he has it not. Nay, but it means, Although he has credit for common food, he is forbidden tithe. He put this further question to him, There is a Mishnah as follows, If he have dipped and have not got credit for it, it is as though he had not dipped. Do you think it means, that it is as though he had not dipped? Certainly not, but it means that it is, as though he had not dipped for tithe. But the case supposed is that of one who has dipped for common food. He considered and brought this refutation.

He went out and speculated and found that there is a Baraitha, viz., If a man have dipped and have not credit, he is forbidden tithe, but is free for common food. R. Eliezer said, If he have dipped and gone up, he may hold himself fit for any thing that he desires. But they reply, If, while he had still one foot in the water, he considered himself fit for a smaller thing, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he had gone up, he may not any more consider himself fit. Don't you think that this means, that he may not consider himself fit for any thing at all? No; while he had still one foot in the water, although he considered himself fit for a smaller thing only, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he have gone up, then, if he did not think of himself as fit for any particular thing, he may consider himself as fit, but if he did think of himself as fit for a smaller thing, he may not consider himself as fit for a greater thing. Who is the Mishnah teacher who says, While he had still one foot in the water? R. P'dath says, It is R. Jehudah, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If a collection of water is measured, and there are in it exactly forty seahs, and two men go down and dip one after the other, the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Jehudah said, If the feet of the first are still in contact with the water, the second also is clean (Mikvaoth, vi. 6). R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement on the point among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis, but, if it is a case of passing from uncleanness to cleanness, all agree that the second also is unclean, and this is the opinion of R. P'dath. There are some who say that R. Nachman said, that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement as regards passing from uncleanness to cleanness, but among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis all agree that the second also is clean. And here there is a divergence from R. P'dath. Ola said,

He went out and speculated and found that there is a Baraitha, viz., If a man have dipped and have not credit, he is forbidden tithe, but is free for common food. R. Eliezer said, If he have dipped and gone up, he may hold himself fit for any thing that he desires. But they reply, If, while he had still one foot in the water, he considered himself fit for a smaller thing, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he had gone up, he may not any more consider himself fit. Don't you think that this means, that he may not consider himself fit for any thing at all? No; while he had still one foot in the water, although he considered himself fit for a smaller thing only, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he have gone up, then, if he did not think of himself as fit for any particular thing, he may consider himself as fit, but if he did think of himself as fit for a smaller thing, he may not consider himself as fit for a greater thing. Who is the Mishnah teacher who says, While he had still one foot in the water? R. P'dath says, It is R. Jehudah, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If a collection of water is measured, and there are in it exactly forty seahs, and two men go down and dip one after the other, the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Jehudah said, If the feet of the first are still in contact with the water, the second also is clean (Mikvaoth, vi. 6). R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement on the point among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis, but, if it is a case of passing from uncleanness to cleanness, all agree that the second also is unclean, and this is the opinion of R. P'dath. There are some who say that R. Nachman said, that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement as regards passing from uncleanness to cleanness, but among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis all agree that the second also is clean. And here there is a divergence from R. P'dath. Ola said,

He that dips for common food and has credit for common food, etc. According to whom does our Mishnah run? It is a saying of our Rabbis, for they make a distinction between common food and tithes. But against this view let me quote the latter part of the Mishnah, The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering. This is in accordance with R. Meir, who says, Common food and tithe are exactly the same. Then is our conclusion to be that the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir? Yes, the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir. Rab Acha bar Ada teaches in the latter part five orders, and establishes it all according to our Rabbis.

He that dips for common food and has credit for common food, etc. According to whom does our Mishnah run? It is a saying of our Rabbis, for they make a distinction between common food and tithes. But against this view let me quote the latter part of the Mishnah, The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering. This is in accordance with R. Meir, who says, Common food and tithe are exactly the same. Then is our conclusion to be that the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir? Yes, the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir. Rab Acha bar Ada teaches in the latter part five orders, and establishes it all according to our Rabbis.

But observe what we learn from the latter part of the Mishnah. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Of sin-offering, yes; of hallowed things, no. Wherefore he considered, Common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things is like hallowed things. R. Jonathan ben El'azar said, A man's neckcloth has fallen from him. He says to his neighbour, Give it to me, and uncleanness is communicated to him.

Raba said, Since the later portion of the Mishnah is on account of interposition, the former is not on account of interposition. But in the former one this is the reason. It is a precaution, in order that needles and pipes should not be dipped in a vessel, the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin bottle. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The communication between religious baths must be as the pipe of a wine-skin as regards its thickness,

Raba said, Since the later portion of the Mishnah is on account of interposition, the former is not on account of interposition. But in the former one this is the reason. It is a precaution, in order that needles and pipes should not be dipped in a vessel, the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin bottle. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The communication between religious baths must be as the pipe of a wine-skin as regards its thickness,

What real difference is there between what Raba and what R. Ela says? There is this difference between them. In the case of a basket and a wine-strainer which are filled with vessels and cleansed, according to the one who says, The prohibition is because of interposition, there is an interposition; but according to the one who says, The prohibition is for a precaution, lest haply needles and pipes should be dipped in a vessel, the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin, the answer is, there is no basket or wine-strainer the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin. And Raba has acted consistently with himself; for Raba said, In the case of a basket and wine-strainer, which are filled with vessels and dipped, all are clean; but in the case of a bath, which is divided by a basket or wine-strainer, he who seeks to cleanse there—the cleansing avails him nought, for lo, all the earth is trembling, and we require that there should be forty seahs of water in one place. And these words refer to a clean vessel, but in the case of an unclean vessel, seeing that the cleansing has gone up over the whole surface of the vessel, it has gone up also over the vessels which are in it. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., Vessels which are filled with vessels and are dipped, lo, these are clean, and if they are not dipped, the mingled waters must reach that amount of mingling which takes place by means of a communication as large as the pipe of a wine-skin (Mikvaoth, vi. 2). How is it that it says, And if they are not dipped? This is the meaning, viz., And if it is not necessary to dip them, still the mingled waters must reach that amount of mingling which takes place by means of a communication as large as the pipe of a wine-skin. And lo, as regards the sayings of Raba and R. Ela, they are the subject of a Baraitha. For there is a Baraitha, A basket and a wine-strainer which are filled with vessels and are dipped are clean as well for hallowed things as for a heave-offering. Abba Saul says, For a heave-offering, but not for hallowed things. If so, then is not a heave-offering also invalid? No, for to whom are we speaking? Is it not to teachers? teachers who are possessed of knowledge? But if so, the same rule will apply to hallowed things also. No, for a common person sees him and goes and dips. Then in the case of heave-offering also, a common person sees him and goes and dips. We need not receive it from him. Hallowed things also we need not receive from him. He would be angry. In the case of heave-offering also he would be angry.

Rab Papa said, According to whom is it that we accept now-a-days the testimony of a common person? According to whom? It is according to R. Jose. But let us consider the question of borrowing. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., An earthen vessel protects everything from uncleanness. These are the words of the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai say, It only protects eatables and drinkables and every earthen vessel. The house of Hillel said to the house of Shammai, Wherefore? The house of Shammai said, Because it is unclean on account of the common people, and a vessel that is unclean does not bar. The house of Hillel said to them, But in accordance with the rule ye have just given do ye not declare clean the eatables and drinkables that are within it? The house of Shammai said to them, When we declared clean the eatables and drinkables which are within it,

The outsides and the inside. What is the meaning of the outsides and the inside? According to what is said in a canonical Mishnah, In the case of a vessel the outside of which is defiled by drinkables its outside is defiled, but its inside, its rim, and its short handles and its long handles are clean; but if its inside is defiled, it is all defiled (B'rakhoth, 52a, ii. 19).

And the place for laying hold etc. What is the place for laying hold? R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, The part by which he reaches it, and accordingly He says, "And he reached her parched corn" (Ruth ii. 14). R. Asi said that R. Jochanan said, The part of the dish of which fastidious persons lay hold. R. Baybi, who stood before R. Nachman, taught, No vessels have outsides or inside whether for holy things of the sanctuary or holy things of the province. He said to him, Holy things of the province, what are they? the heave-offering? But lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The outsides and inside and the place for laying hold are reckoned as distinct for the heave-offering (Chag. 20b, ii. 1). R. Baybi replied, Perhaps it refers to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,