normally

For Rabbi Meir used to say: anything that is normally [sold] by counting causes [a mixture] to become consecrated [in even the smallest amount]. But the sages say only six things consecrate [a mixture in even the smallest amount], and Rabbi Akiba says seven [things]. And these are they: Nuts with soft shells; badan pomegranates; stopped-up casks; beet shoots; cabbage-heads; Greek pumpkins. Rabbi Akiba says: also loaves [baked by] a householder. To those to which orlah applies [they prohibit the mixture] as orlah, [to those of which] kilayim of the vineyard apply [they prohibit the mixture as] kilayim of the vineyard.

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

The pesah which comes in impurity: zavin and zavot, menstruant women and women after childbirth do not eat from it, yet if they did eat they are exempt from karet. Rabbi Eliezer exempts [them] even [of the karet normally incurred] for entering the sanctuary.

If a man saw lost property and fell upon it and someone else came along and seized it, he that seized it acquired it. If a man saw people running [in his field] after lost property [such as] a deer with a broken leg, or pigeons that couldn’t fly, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has acquired them. But if the deer was running normally or the pigeons flying, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has said nothing.

This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.

This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.

If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.

If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.

If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.

If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.

The sacrifices of non-Jews: one is not liable on their account for piggul, remnant, or defilement, and if [a priest] slaughters them outside [the Temple], he is not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose declares him liable. The things for which one is not liable on account of piggul, one is liable on account of remnant and defilement except blood. Rabbi Shimon declares one liable for anything which is normally eaten, but for wood, frankincense and incense, one is not liable for [transgressions involving] defilement.

If he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of something else; if he drained out its blood for the sake of something else, or for its own sake and for the sake of something else, or for the sake of something else and for its own sake, it is unfit. An olah of a bird is fit [in such circumstances] except that it does not count for its owner’s obligation. A hatat of a bird or an olah of a bird which he nipped, or drained out the blood [with the intention] to eat what was normally eaten or to burn what was normally burned outside of the appropriate place, is invalid, but it does not involve karet; After the appropriate time, it is piggul and involves karet, Provided that the mattir was offered in accordance with the regulations. How does he offer the mattir according to regulations? If he nipped it in silence and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood in silence; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time: in these cases he offered the mattir according to regulation. How does he not offer the mattir according to regulation? If he nipped it [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of a different sacrifice and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice; or if he nipped it and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice: in these cases he did not offer the mattir according to regulation. [If he intended] to eat as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] as much as an olive the next day, [or] as much as an olive the next day [and] as much as an olive outside the appropriate place; Or half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] half as much as an olive the next day; Or half as much as an olive the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place, [the sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: if the [wrongful] intention of time precedes that of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [wrongful] intention of place precedes that of time, it is unfit and does not involve karet. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice is] unfit and does not involve karet. [If he intended] to eat half as much as an olive [outside the appropriate place or after the appropriate time] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is fit, for eating and burning do not combine.

If he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of something else; if he drained out its blood for the sake of something else, or for its own sake and for the sake of something else, or for the sake of something else and for its own sake, it is unfit. An olah of a bird is fit [in such circumstances] except that it does not count for its owner’s obligation. A hatat of a bird or an olah of a bird which he nipped, or drained out the blood [with the intention] to eat what was normally eaten or to burn what was normally burned outside of the appropriate place, is invalid, but it does not involve karet; After the appropriate time, it is piggul and involves karet, Provided that the mattir was offered in accordance with the regulations. How does he offer the mattir according to regulations? If he nipped it in silence and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood in silence; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time: in these cases he offered the mattir according to regulation. How does he not offer the mattir according to regulation? If he nipped it [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of a different sacrifice and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice; or if he nipped it and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice: in these cases he did not offer the mattir according to regulation. [If he intended] to eat as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] as much as an olive the next day, [or] as much as an olive the next day [and] as much as an olive outside the appropriate place; Or half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] half as much as an olive the next day; Or half as much as an olive the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place, [the sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: if the [wrongful] intention of time precedes that of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [wrongful] intention of place precedes that of time, it is unfit and does not involve karet. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice is] unfit and does not involve karet. [If he intended] to eat half as much as an olive [outside the appropriate place or after the appropriate time] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is fit, for eating and burning do not combine.

If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.

If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.

The two loaves were eaten never earlier than on the second day and never later than on the third day. How so? [Normally] they were baked on the day before the festival and eaten on the festival, that is, on the second day. If the festival fell on the day after Shabbat, they would be eaten on the third day. The showbread was eaten never earlier than on the ninth day and never later than on the eleventh day. How so? [Normally] it was baked on the day before Shabbat and eaten on Shabbat [of the following week], that is on the ninth day. If a festival fell on the day before Shabbat, it would be eaten on the tenth day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [fell before Shabbat], it would then be eaten on the eleventh day. [Baking] overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy [high priest]: it overrides the festival but not the fast day (Yom Kippur).

The two loaves were eaten never earlier than on the second day and never later than on the third day. How so? [Normally] they were baked on the day before the festival and eaten on the festival, that is, on the second day. If the festival fell on the day after Shabbat, they would be eaten on the third day. The showbread was eaten never earlier than on the ninth day and never later than on the eleventh day. How so? [Normally] it was baked on the day before Shabbat and eaten on Shabbat [of the following week], that is on the ninth day. If a festival fell on the day before Shabbat, it would be eaten on the tenth day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [fell before Shabbat], it would then be eaten on the eleventh day. [Baking] overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy [high priest]: it overrides the festival but not the fast day (Yom Kippur).

MISHNAH: The rapist who sowed in a vineyard and it was taken from him, one cuts it even during a holiday. How much does he have to give to the workers? Up to one third. More than that he cuts normally, even after the holiday. When is the property called the rapist’s? From the moment it is sunk.

Rebbi Joḥanan and his colleagues were sitting and discussed the problem whether these are subject to removal or not. Rebbi Yannai was passing by. They said, this is a man worth asking. They asked him and he said to them: Everything that normally falls from the tree is subject to removal, but what does not normally fall is free from removal. Which ones normally fall, or normally do not fall, the Tanna refrained from [stating].

Rebbi Joḥanan and his colleagues were sitting and discussed the problem whether these are subject to removal or not. Rebbi Yannai was passing by. They said, this is a man worth asking. They asked him and he said to them: Everything that normally falls from the tree is subject to removal, but what does not normally fall is free from removal. Which ones normally fall, or normally do not fall, the Tanna refrained from [stating].

Rebbi Joḥanan and his colleagues were sitting and discussed the problem whether these are subject to removal or not. Rebbi Yannai was passing by. They said, this is a man worth asking. They asked him and he said to them: Everything that normally falls from the tree is subject to removal, but what does not normally fall is free from removal. Which ones normally fall, or normally do not fall, the Tanna refrained from [stating].

Rebbi Joḥanan and his colleagues were sitting and discussed the problem whether these are subject to removal or not. Rebbi Yannai was passing by. They said, this is a man worth asking. They asked him and he said to them: Everything that normally falls from the tree is subject to removal, but what does not normally fall is free from removal. Which ones normally fall, or normally do not fall, the Tanna refrained from [stating].

The house of Rebbi stated: He eats normally and is free. Rebbi Jonah asked, where do we hold? If he hired him to work with him on the olives, everybody agrees that he eats normally and is free. If he hired him to work the olive trees, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. But we must hold that he hired him to thin out the olives. Since the latter part is about thinning out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he tears them out leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

The house of Rebbi stated: He eats normally and is free. Rebbi Jonah asked, where do we hold? If he hired him to work with him on the olives, everybody agrees that he eats normally and is free. If he hired him to work the olive trees, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. But we must hold that he hired him to thin out the olives. Since the latter part is about thinning out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he tears them out leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. As we have stated there: “In a narrow-mouthed flask he dips and takes it out normally. Rebbi Jehudah says, for the first sprinkling.” Just as Rebbi Jehudah said the first pushes out the last, so here Rebbi Eliezer said the first pushes out the last.

Rebbi Yose stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: From where that all those to be circumcised should only be circumcised during daytime? The verse says, And on the day. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, is that so? All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night. A woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There they say, even one whose time has passed, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of our rabbis immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

Rebbi Yose stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: From where that all those to be circumcised should only be circumcised during daytime? The verse says, And on the day. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, is that so? All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night. A woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There they say, even one whose time has passed, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of our rabbis immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects (normally) on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another] place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes] at the end.

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects (normally) on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another] place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes] at the end.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” And (did we not state) [was it not stated], in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose (in the name of Rebbi Ila) [ben Rebbi Abun]: Grinding as a category was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi (Yose) [Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. (It was stated.) Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina ben Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, (in truth) [also] preparations for making food they permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

He who hollows out cliffs, cavities, pillars, millstones, or splits mosaic stones, splits blocks, is liable because of chiseling. One who puts together a Galilean bed is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋura said, he only is like one who takes a brick and puts it on bricks on the Sabbath. Rav Hamnuna instructed the Head of the Captivity to disassemble a composite table on the Sabbath. He said, Rav Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya was with him. Rav Jehudah heard it and said, the one who instructed him did not study or serve. Rebbi Shammai said, the one who instructed him instructed following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: Planking of a ship, or of a crib, and the posts of a bed, and the leg of a table, and the handle on the top of a knife one shall not return but if one returned he is not liable. But if one pushed in he is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if they were loose he removes and returns. It was stated: “Stuck together they are a connection for impurity and sprinkling; nailed together they are a connection for impurity but not for sprinkling. Those which may be taken apart and put together again are connections neither for impurity nor for sprinkling.” And here, you are saying so? There normally they are fixed; if not fixed there is no connection. But here sticking together is the end of its manufacture.

HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters yeast is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Jonah both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina Beroqa said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, they also permitted preparations for making food. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, any work which one started before the Fourteenth he may finish on the Fourteenth,” but only what is needed on the holiday. “But he may not start one on the Fourteenth,” even something needed for the holiday. “But the Sages say, three trades are working on Passover Eve, the tailors,” since a non-professional may sew normally on the intermediate days of the holiday. “The barbers,” since nezirim and lepers shave on the holiday. “The laundrymen,” since usually people who ascend from impurity to purity launder on the holiday. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, also the cobblers,” since the pilgrims are used to repair their boots and sandals on the holiday. But the rabbis say, they were rich and made the pilgrimage on animals.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he cannot dedicate it without his knowledge. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah says so: “A woman living in her husband’s house, and both her father and her husband slaughtered for her, should eat of her husband’s.” Where do we hold? If giving instructions, normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children. So not giving instructions. The Mishnah may be about giving instructions. There came Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , the Mishnah is about giving instructions. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, a person may slaughter another’s Pesaḥ without his knowledge, but he may not choose it without his knowledge? There is a difference between Pesaḥ and a purification sacrifice. If a Pesaḥ grows it may be used to satisfy an obligation; a purification sacrifice if it grows may not be used to satisfy an obligation.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this about the follow-holiday. What is the follow-holiday? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is the first holiday when her father follows her to her husband’s house. If she did not go for the first holiday, does the second holiday become the follow-holiday? She always has a follow-holiday. Does a widow have a follow-holiday? Let us hear from the following: “If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday.” Either this means that she always has a follow-holiday or it means that a widow has a follow-holiday. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that she has children but no husband. Normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children.

“Thirteen won here.” And it was stated on this: “Sometimes fourteen, sometimes fifteen, sometimes sixteen, no less and no more.” Normally by nine, and on Tabernacles in the hand of one a vial of water, these are ten. In the evening by eleven; in the hands of two, two wooden logs. On the Sabbath by eleven, itself by nine, two, in their hands two cups of incense of the shew-bread; this makes (fifteen) [fourteen]. On the Sabbath of Tabernacles, in the hand of one a vial of water, this makes sixteen.

Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They formulated this for Usha mats. Rebbi Eliezer said, [normally] Usha mats are impure unless made for tents. Normally Tiberian mats are pure unless made for sitting. Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi instructed about those on the doors of stores that they are pure. Rebbi Immi instructed that woven ones are impure. May one use them for roofing? The disagreement of Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar instructed in distress to untie the knots and use them as roofing. We have stated: “And similarly if one unties the knots it is pure,” and you are saying so?

Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They formulated this for Usha mats. Rebbi Eliezer said, [normally] Usha mats are impure unless made for tents. Normally Tiberian mats are pure unless made for sitting. Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula, Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi instructed about those on the doors of stores that they are pure. Rebbi Immi instructed that woven ones are impure. May one use them for roofing? The disagreement of Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar instructed in distress to untie the knots and use them as roofing. We have stated: “And similarly if one unties the knots it is pure,” and you are saying so?

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that spices are pounded in a wooden mortar, and salt in a container or with a cooking spoon. But the House of Hillel say that spices are pounded normally in a stone mortar and salt in a wooden mortar.

MISHNAH: If one selects out legumes on the holiday, the House of Shammai say he picks out the food and eats. But the House of Hillel say, he picks out normally into his chest or a basket, but not on a tablet, not with a fine sieve nor with a coarse sieve. Rabban Gamliel says, also he drenches and scoops off.

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at another place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat the artichokes at the end.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he picks out normally into his chest or a basket”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he drenches and scoops off.” And was it not stated, in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Normal grinding was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Ze`ira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine is at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, also preparations for making food are permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

All who are obligated to immerse themselves immerse themselves normally on the Ninth of Av and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Ḥanina the second-in-command of the Cohanim said, Our God’s House is worth that the Cohanim should lose one immersion because of it. Rebbi Levi preached according to the statement of Rebbi Ḥanina the second-in-command of the Cohanim.

MISHNAH: One blows the shofar because of any danger which menaces the public except an overabundance of rain. It happened that they said to Onias the circle-drawer, pray for rain. He said to them, go and shelter the Passover ovens so they should not get softened. He prayed but no rain fell. What did he do? He drew a circle, stood inside it, and said: Master of the World! Your children trusted me since I am like a familiar before You. I am swearing by Your great Name that I shall not move from here until You show mercy for Your children. Rain started to drip. He said, that is not what I was asking for, but rain {to fill} cistern, ditches, and caves. It rained in a raging storm. He said, that is not what I was asking for, but rain of goodwill, blessing, and donation. It rained normally until Israel moved from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rain. They came and said to him, just as you prayed for them to come, so pray to remove them. He told them, go and check whether the losers’ stone was wiped away.

“He said, that is not what I was asking for, but rain of goodwill, blessing, and donation. It rained normally until Israel moved from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rain.” This implies that the Temple Mount was covered by a roof. And it was stated so: There was a stoa inside a stoa.

May a village dweller free a city dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? May a city dweller free a village dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? Or should it follow what “Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading”? Rebbi Yudan asked. [A village dweller who] decided to move in the night of the Fifteenth? Is that not the Mishnah, “a villager who went to a walled city”? The Mishnah if he was in the walled city. What is problematic for him, if he was in a village. But those on an ocean trip or passing through deserts read normally on the Fourteenth. Rebbi Mana said, if he intended to return to his place. Rebbi Phineas said, therefore the dispersed Jews, in that hour he was dispersed.

“Nor immerses,” for it is written, he sprinkles, he immerses. Since sprinkling is during daytime, also immersion is during daytime. From where that sprinkling is during daytime? For it is written, the pure one sprinkles on the impure one on the third day. All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night. A woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There they say, even one whose time has passed not, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of the family of our rabbis immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

“Nor immerses,” for it is written, he sprinkles, he immerses. Since sprinkling is during daytime, also immersion is during daytime. From where that sprinkling is during daytime? For it is written, the pure one sprinkles on the impure one on the third day. All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night. A woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There they say, even one whose time has passed not, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of the family of our rabbis immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

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: 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: 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.

“Normally”, catching using a trap. “With a change”, he sticks on a spear, hits with an axe, or flattens the earth under it. It was stated: “One destroys ant hills on the holiday. How does one do it? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he takes from one and puts them next to another and they will kill one another,” but only is a water canal in between.

“One mends a breach on the holiday,” stone on stone and pebble on pebble; “but in the Sabbatical he builds normally,” stone on pebble and pebble on stone. Only a breach which is not surrounded by dust. But it is forbidden to mend a breach which is surrounded by dust in the Sabbatical year. It was stated such: In the Sabbatical year it is forbidden to fence in any breach which is surrounded by dust; but it is permitted fence in any breach which is not surrounded by dust, unless it represents a danger to the public. But if it represents a danger to the public even though it is surrounded by dust it may be fenced in in the Sabbatical year. As the following: “If his wall was sloping one tears it down and rebuilds.” Could he not tear down and not build? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the beginning. For if you tell him not to build he will not tear down and create a danger.

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.

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.

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.

HALAKHAH: “One does not write documents for sharecroppers or contractorship on the holiday. The appraiser appraises normally on condition that he neither measure nor weigh nor count.” “But one accepts contractorship on the holiday on condition that it be executed after the holiday; one does not accept contractorship on the holiday on condition that it be executed on the holiday. The appraiser appraises normally on condition that he neither measure not weigh nor count.”

HALAKHAH: “One does not write documents for sharecroppers or contractorship on the holiday. The appraiser appraises normally on condition that he neither measure nor weigh nor count.” “But one accepts contractorship on the holiday on condition that it be executed after the holiday; one does not accept contractorship on the holiday on condition that it be executed on the holiday. The appraiser appraises normally on condition that he neither measure not weigh nor count.”

MISHNAH: If somebody saw a find and fell upon it when another person grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it. If one saw people running after a find, after an injured deer, after young pigeons unable to fly, and he said: “my field shall acquire it for me”, it acquired it for him. If the deer was running normally, or the pigeons were flying, and he said: “my field shall acquire it for me”, he did not say anything.

HALAKHAH: “One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch.” From where a warning not to give any of his descendants to the Moloch? Do not give any of your descendants to the Moloch. Extirpation from where? For he gave one of his descendants to the Molochand shall be extirpated. Punishment from where? Each one of the Children of Israel, or of the sojourner in Israel, who would give any of his descendants to the Moloch shall be made to die; the people of the Land shall smash him with stones. Do not give any of your descendants, I could think that he was guilty if he handed over but did not make him pass; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through but not for the Moloch; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through for the Moloch. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through for the Moloch but without fire; the verse says: among you, nobody should be found to make his son or his daughter pass through fire. Passing through, passing through as an equal cut. Since “passing through” mentioned there is through fire, so “passing through” mentioned here also is through fire. You have to say that he is not guilty unless he handed over and made him pass through fire for the Moloch. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He is guilty only if he hand him over to the priests, takes him, and makes him pass. What if he lets him walk normally? It was stated: one was drawing him and made him pass through. It was stated: if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty. Whether for the Moloch or for any other foreign worship; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, he is guilty only for the Moloch, he is guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s reason is from here: It shall not be found in you, from your body you should not be found making pass through. I shall extirpate him … from among his people. To include all other foreign worship for extirpation. From where punishment? Of his descendants he gave to the Moloch, death he shall be made to die, if he made him pass through himself. Does he not pass through on his feet? Because he made him pass through himself, but if he was drawing him and made him pass through, he is guilty. What does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon mean, if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable? He has to make him pass through jumping.

“The necromancer is the πύθων and one who speaks from his armpit. The medium speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned. And one who asks the dead. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates a skull. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates his masculinity. What is the difference between one interrogated by his skull or one raised by his masculinity? The one interrogated by his skull rises normally, rises on the Sabbath, and a commoner can raise a king. But one raised by his masculinity does not rise normally, does not rise on the Sabbath, and a commoner cannot raise a king.

“The necromancer is the πύθων and one who speaks from his armpit. The medium speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned. And one who asks the dead. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates a skull. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates his masculinity. What is the difference between one interrogated by his skull or one raised by his masculinity? The one interrogated by his skull rises normally, rises on the Sabbath, and a commoner can raise a king. But one raised by his masculinity does not rise normally, does not rise on the Sabbath, and a commoner cannot raise a king.

HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense!

HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense!

Rav commanded to the family of Rav Aḥa, Rebbi Immi commanded to his own family, if you go out on the fast day you should not incline normally. Rebbi Jonah inclined on his side; Rebbi Aḥa inclined on his side. Rebbi Samuel said, I saw Rebbi Abbahu inclining normally. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Abbahu, is it not written, a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it. Explain it if he fixed a place for it. But is it not written, it was when David arrived at the mountaintop where one bows down before God? Except bowing down which is not on the ground. Does there exist bowing down which is not on the ground? They fell down with their faces to the ground and bowed down. Rebbi Abbahu added up to give thanks to the Eternal for He is good; Rebbi Mana added up to for eternal is His kindness to Israel. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, the stretching out on the Fast Day, and the willow of the Seventh Day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also this blood letting. It follows what Rebbi Immi said, the Babylonians in the name of the rabbis there: They permitted prostrating only on a public fast, and only on the side. The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his fathers: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that if he falls on his face the Holy One, praise to Him, would tell him, get up, should not fall down, in the case of an individual [praying] for the community.

Rav commanded to the family of Rav Aḥa, Rebbi Immi commanded to his own family, if you go out on the fast day you should not incline normally. Rebbi Jonah inclined on his side; Rebbi Aḥa inclined on his side. Rebbi Samuel said, I saw Rebbi Abbahu inclining normally. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Abbahu, is it not written, a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it. Explain it if he fixed a place for it. But is it not written, it was when David arrived at the mountaintop where one bows down before God? Except bowing down which is not on the ground. Does there exist bowing down which is not on the ground? They fell down with their faces to the ground and bowed down. Rebbi Abbahu added up to give thanks to the Eternal for He is good; Rebbi Mana added up to for eternal is His kindness to Israel. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, the stretching out on the Fast Day, and the willow of the Seventh Day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also this blood letting. It follows what Rebbi Immi said, the Babylonians in the name of the rabbis there: They permitted prostrating only on a public fast, and only on the side. The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his fathers: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that if he falls on his face the Holy One, praise to Him, would tell him, get up, should not fall down, in the case of an individual [praying] for the community.

Watchmen of gardens and orchards are exempt both by day and by night. But let them make a Sukkah there and dwell in it? Abaye said, "You shall dwell" as you normally dwell

GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Eliezer? You shall dwell [in Sukkot for seven days]"--this implies just as you normally dwell. Just as in a [normal] dwelling, [one has] one [meal] by day and one by night, so too in the Sukkah [he must have] one meal by day and one by night.

When R. Dimi came he said. [R. Tarfon meant]: Take a cubit which has [normally] six handbreadths, into five. Deduct from these the three for the myrtle and the remainder is for the palm-branch. How much then is it? Three and three fifths?

And this is what R. Elazar said: What is the implication of the text, “It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8): ‘To do justly’ means [to act in accordance with] justice; ‘to love mercy’ refers to acts of loving kindness’, ‘and to walk humbly with your God’ refers to attending to funerals and providing a bride with a dowry for her wedding. Now can we not make an a fortiori deduction: If in matters which are normally performed publicly the Torah says ‘to walk humbly’, how much more so in matters that are normally done privately?

And this is what R. Elazar said: What is the implication of the text, “It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8): ‘To do justly’ means [to act in accordance with] justice; ‘to love mercy’ refers to acts of loving kindness’, ‘and to walk humbly with your God’ refers to attending to funerals and providing a bride with a dowry for her wedding. Now can we not make an a fortiori deduction: If in matters which are normally performed publicly the Torah says ‘to walk humbly’, how much more so in matters that are normally done privately?