nuri

What is an aris (an espalier) [which is regarded as a vineyard]? One who has planted a [single] row consisting of five vines beside a fence ten handbreadths high, or beside a trench ten handbreadths deep and four wide, they leave a space of four cubits in which to work it. Bet Shammai says: they measure the four cubits from the body of the vine to the field; But Bet Hillel says: from the fence to the field. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: all who say so are mistaken! Rather, if there are four cubits from the body of the vines to the fence, they leave a space in which to work it and they may sow the rest. And how much is the space in which work to work a vine? Six handbreadths in every direction. Rabbi Akiva says: three.

Rabbi Yose says: Anything stewed with [terumah] beets becomes forbidden, because they impart a flavor. Rabbi Shimon says: cabbage from a field artificially irrigated [that is stewed] with [terumah] cabbage from a field watered by rain, is forbidden because it absorbs. Rabbi Akiba says: all things cooked together are permitted, except those with meat. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: liver renders other things forbidden, but does not become forbidden, because it gives off [flavor] but does not absorb.

What counts as a species with its same species? Wheat is not reckoned together with any [species] other than with spelt; Barley is reckoned together with all [species] except wheat. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the rest of the species are reckoned together one with another.

If one slept on the road and was unaware that night had fallen, he may move two thousand cubits in any direction, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. But the sages say: he has only four cubits within which to move. Rabbi Eliezer says: and the man is deemed to be in the middle of them. Rabbi Judah says: he may move in any direction he desires. And Rabbi Judah agrees that once chosen his direction he may not go back on it.

Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?” It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them. On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (swollen)? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.

The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]: He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar]. Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them? Rather he says: “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest.

They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses]. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation. They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment. He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets. Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation.

If a deaf man married a woman of sound senses or a man of sound senses married a deaf woman he may, if he wishes, divorce her, and he may, if he wishes retain her; just as he marries by gestures so he divorces her by gestures. If a man of sound senses married a woman of sound senses and she became deaf, he may, if he wishes, divorce her; and he may, if he wishes, retain her. If she became insane he may not divorce her. If he became deaf or insane, he may never divorce her. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: Why may a woman who became deaf be divorced while a man who became deaf may not divorce [his wife]? They answered him: a man who divorces is not like a woman who is divorced, for while a woman may be divorced with her consent and without her consent, a man can divorce only with his consent.

Rabbi Yose said: it happened that a young girl went down to draw water from a spring and she was raped. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: if most of the inhabitants of the town marry [their daughters] into the priesthood, this [girl] may [also] marry into the priesthood.

[If she vows,] “Konam that which I do for my father,” [or] “your father,” [or] “my brother,” [or] “your brother,” [the husband] cannot annul it. [“Konam] “that which I do for you,” he need not annul it. Rabbi Akiva says: he should annul it, lest she make more than is fitting for him. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: he should annul it, lest he divorce her and she thereby be forbidden to him.

When a man leaves produce for his fellow, [and his fellow returns it to the owner] he may exact reductions [due to natural depletion of the produce]. For wheat and rice, nine half kabs to the kor. For barley and durra nine kabs to the kor. For spelt and linseed three seahs to the kor. All is in proportion to the quantity and according to the time [it is left]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: “But what do the mice care about [the quantity]? Won’t they eat [the same amount] whether there is a lot or a little? Rather, he may exact a reduction from only one kor. Rabbi Judah says: “If the quantity was great he may not exact any reduction, since the produce increases in bulk.”

Also he used to say that there are five things that last twelve months: The judgment of the generation of the flood [continued] twelve months; The judgment of Job [continued] twelve months; The judgment of the Egyptians [continued] twelve months; The judgment of Gog and Magog in the time to come [will continue] twelve months; The judgment of the wicked in gehinom [continues] twelve months, for it is said, and “It will be from one month until its [same] month” (Isaiah 66:23). Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: “[As long as] from Passover to Shavuoth, for it is said, “And from one Sabbath until its [next] Sabbath” (ibid.).

In the following cases the skin is considered flesh: The skin of a person, The skin of the domesticated pig. Rabbi Yose says: even the skin of the wild pig. The skin of the hump of a young camel. The skin of the head of a young calf. The skin around the hooves. The skin of the pudenda. The skin of a fetus. The skin beneath the fat tail. The skin of the gecko, the monitor, the lizard and the skink. Rabbi Judah says: the lizard is like the weasel. If any of these skins was tanned or trampled upon as much as [was usual] for tanning, it becomes clean, excepting the skin of a man. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the eight reptiles have [real] skins.

One who was flaying cattle or wild animals, clean or unclean, small or large: In order to use the hide for a covering, if he stripped as can be taken hold of [the hide is no longer considered as connected to the flesh.] In order to make a water-skin, until the breast has been flayed. If he was flaying from the feet upwards, until the whole hide [has been flayed]. [All of these measures apply] for both conveying uncleanness and becoming unclean. As for the skin that is on the neck: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: it is not connected. But the sages say it is connected until the whole hide has been flayed.

If [a first born] has no testicles or if it only has one testicle, [it is a blemish]. Rabbi Ishmael says: if it has two pouches, then it has two testicles, but if it only has one pouch, then it only has one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says: [the animal] is placed on its buttocks and he squeezes [the pouch]. If a testicle is [in there, inside the pouch] it will eventually come out. It happened that one squeezed it and [the testicle] did not come out, but when it was slaughtered [the testicle] was found attached to the loins, and Rabbi Akiva permitted [the animal] while Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited it.

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

If one had relations with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a menstruant. And so too, if one had intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law or of his mother-in-law. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: if one had intercourse with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. They said to him: all these three are the same name.

The following among earthen vessels are susceptible to impurity: A tray with a rim, An unbroken fire-pan, And a tray made up of dishes, If one of them was defiled by a [dead] creeping thing they do not all become unclean, But if it had a rim that projected above the rims of the dishes and one of them was defiled all are unclean. Similarly with an earthen spice-box and a double ink-pot, and a wooden spice-box, if one container was defiled from a liquid, the other is not unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: its thickness is divided and that side which serves the unclean one is unclean while that which serves the clean one remains clean. If its rim projects above the others and one of them contracted impurity the other is unclean.

If vessels are made from iron ore, from smelted iron, from the hoop of a wheel, from sheets, from plating, from the bases, rims or handles of vessels, from chippings or filings, they are clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even those made of pieces of vessels. From [vessels that are made] of fragments of vessels, from pieces of old vessels, or from nails that were known to have been made from vessels, are unclean. [If they were made] from ordinary nails: Bet Shammai says: they are unclean, And Bet Hillel says that they are clean.

The pomegranate of which they spoke refers to one that is neither small nor big but of moderate size. And why did they mention the pomegranates of Baddan? That whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: to use them as a measure for holes in vessels. Rabbi Akiva said: they were mentioned for both reasons: that they are to be used as a measure for holes in vessels and that whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden. Rabbi Yose said: the pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba were mentioned only to indicate that they must be tithed everywhere with certain tithe.

The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the first day. There can be no uncleanness in what was created on the second day. The laws of uncleanness can apply to what was created on the third day. No there can be no uncleanness in what was created on the fourth day and on the fifth day, except for the wing of the vulture or an ostrich-egg that is plated. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: why should the wing of a vulture be different from all other wings? The laws of uncleanness can apply to all that was created on the sixth day.

The base of the goldsmiths’ anvil is susceptible to uncleanness, but that of the blacksmiths is clean. A whetting-board which has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A writing-tablet that has a receptacle for wax is susceptible to uncleanness, but one that has none is clean. A straw mat or a tube of straw: Rabbi Akiva rules it is susceptible to uncleanness; But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that is it clean. Rabbi Shimon says: the hollow stalk of colocynth is subject to the same law. A mat of reeds or rushes is clean. A reed-tube that was cut for holding anything remains clean until all the pith has been removed.

A mirror is pure. A tray that was made into a mirror remains susceptible, but if it was originally made to serve as a mirror it is pure. A large [glass] spoon that has been placed on a table is susceptible to uncleanness if it can hold anything whatsoever. But if it cannot do so: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible, And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that it is pure.

A bone the size of a barley-corn that is divided into two: Rabbi Akiva declares it unclean But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares it clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: they did not say 'bones’ the size of a barley-corn, but ‘bone’ the size of a barley-corn. A quarter [of a kav] of bones crushed fine, and there is not a single [bone] the size of a barley-corn: Rabbi Shimon declares it clean But the sages unclean. A limb [severed] from a living person which has been divided into two is clean. Rabbi Yose declares [it] unclean; But he agrees that if it is taken from a living person by halves it is clean.

A bone the size of a barley-corn that is divided into two: Rabbi Akiva declares it unclean But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares it clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: they did not say 'bones’ the size of a barley-corn, but ‘bone’ the size of a barley-corn. A quarter [of a kav] of bones crushed fine, and there is not a single [bone] the size of a barley-corn: Rabbi Shimon declares it clean But the sages unclean. A limb [severed] from a living person which has been divided into two is clean. Rabbi Yose declares [it] unclean; But he agrees that if it is taken from a living person by halves it is clean.

Vessels beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar] remain clean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them unclean. [In the case of] the uncleanness and the vessels being [together] beneath the flowerlike top [of a pillar]: If there is a space of one cubic handbreadth there, [the vessels] become unclean; If not, they remain clean. [In the case of] two wall-cupboards, one beside the other, or one above the other, if one of them was opened, both it and the house become unclean, but its companion remains clean. The wall-cupboard is considered as if it is plugged up, and it is subject to the principle of halves for conveying uncleanness into the house.

Some things bring forth uncleanness and [also] a protect [against it]; [Some things] bring forth uncleanness but do not protect against it; [Some things] protect but do not bring forth; [Some things] do not bring forth nor do they protect. The following bring forth and protect against [impurity]: A chest, a box, a cupboard, a beehive of straw, a beehive of reeds, or the water-tank of an Alexandrian ship, such of which [objects] have [flat] bottoms and can contain [at least] forty seahs liquid measure or two kors dry measure. [Also] a curtain, a leather apron, a leather bedspread, a sheet, a matting underlay or a mat when made into tents. A herd of cattle, unclean or clean, packs of wild animals or birds, a resting bird, a [shady] place that [a woman] makes for her son among the ears of corn; The iris, the ivy, squirting cucumber, Greek gourds and clean foodstuffs. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri did not agree with regard to clean foodstuffs except in the case of a cake of dried figs.

A board placed over the mouth of a new oven, overlapping it on all sides to the extent of a handbreadth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the board], vessels above it remain clean; If there is uncleanness above it, vessels beneath it remain clean. In the case of an old oven, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean. [If the board] is placed over the mouth of two ovens, if there is uncleanness between them, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean.

A board placed over the mouth of a new oven, overlapping it on all sides to the extent of a handbreadth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the board], vessels above it remain clean; If there is uncleanness above it, vessels beneath it remain clean. In the case of an old oven, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean. [If the board] is placed over the mouth of two ovens, if there is uncleanness between them, they become unclean. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri declares them clean.

A rod above a doorway, even if one hundred cubits higher, forms a passage for the uncleanness no matter its width, the words of Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: don't be more stringent than the case of a projection.

Scalls may become unclean for two weeks and by two signs: by thin yellow hair and by spreading. By thin yellow hair: means stunted and short, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: even though it is long. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: what is the meaning of the expression when people say, "This stick is thin," or "This reed is thin"? Does "thin" imply that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long? Rabbi Akiva replied: before we learn from the reed let us learn from hair, [for they say] "So and so's hair is thin": "thin" means that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long.

Scalls may become unclean for two weeks and by two signs: by thin yellow hair and by spreading. By thin yellow hair: means stunted and short, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: even though it is long. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: what is the meaning of the expression when people say, "This stick is thin," or "This reed is thin"? Does "thin" imply that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long? Rabbi Akiva replied: before we learn from the reed let us learn from hair, [for they say] "So and so's hair is thin": "thin" means that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

A flask for hatat waters whose outer part has become unclean, its inner part also becomes unclean, and it conveys uncleanness to another flask, and the other to another, even if they are a hundred. A bell and a clapper are regarded as connected. In the case of a spindle stick used for coarse material, one should not sprinkle on its stick or ring, but if he sprinkled on one, both are regarded as having been sprinkled upon. A spindle stick used for flax they are regarded as connected. If a leather cover of a crib is fastened to its knobs, both are regarded as connected. The base is not regarded as connected either in respect of uncleanness or cleanness. All drilled handles of utensils are regarded as connected. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: also those that are wedged into holes in the utensils.

They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence.

Some materials raise the mikveh up [to the required quantity] and do not make it invalid. Some make it invalid and do not raise it up [to the required quantity]; And some neither raise it up [to the required quantity] nor make it invalid. These raise it up to the required quantity and do not make the mikveh invalid. Snow, hail, frosted dew, ice, salt, and thin mud. Rabbi Akiva said: Rabbi Ishmael once argued against me saying; snow does not raise up the mikveh [to its required quantity]. But the men of Madeba testified in his name that he had once told them: go and bring snow and with it prepare a mikveh from the outset. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: hailstones are like drawn water. How do they raise it up [to the required quantity] and not render it invalid? If the mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a se'ah of them fell in and made up [the required quantity], they thus make up [the required quantity] but do not render it invalid.

If a kortov of wine fell into three logs of water and its color became like that of wine, and the water then fell into a mikveh, it does not render it invalid. If there were three logs of water less a kortov into which a kortov of milk fell, and their color remained like the color of water, and then they fell into a mikveh, they do not render it invalid. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: everything goes by the color.

Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other. Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread. Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted. If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.

Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other. Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread. Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted. If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.

A jug which sunk into a cistern containing wine, and a tevul yom touched it: If [he touched it] from the rim and inwards, it serves as a connective; If from the rim and outwards, it does not serve as a connective. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even though [the level of wine in the cistern] is the height of a man [above the sunken jar], and he touched [the wine] directly above the mouth of the jar, it serves as a connective.

Costus, amomum, principal spices, [roots of] crowfoot, asafoetida, pepper and lozenges made of saffron may be bought with tithe money, but they do not convey food uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to him: if they may be bought with [second] tithe money, then why should they not impart food uncleanness? And if they do not impart food uncleanness, then they should also not be bought with [second] tithe money?

Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, why are they called nĕmūšōt, because they come at the end. Abba Shaul used to call them “gropers.” Some formulate in the Mishnah nĕmūšōt, some formulate mĕšūšōt. He who says nĕmūšōt, because they come at the end. Those who say mĕšūšōt, because they grope to come. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Menaḥem: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri used to go out with the second wave of seekers and returned with his needs for the entire year.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One surrounds it with three ropes, one above the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

MISHNAH: What is a trellis? If somebody plants a row of five vines along a fence ten hand-breadths high or a ditch ten hand-breadths deep and four wide, one gives it four cubits working space. The House of Shammai say one measures four cubits between the stems of the vines and the field. The House of Hillel say, between fence and field. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, anybody who affirms this is in error; if there are four cubits between the stems of the vines and the fence one gives it its working space and he may sow the rest. What is the working space of a vine? Six hand-breadths in every direction; Rabbi Aqiba says three.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah was taught about a straight trellis. In that case, would it not be forbidden as a vineyard without a fence? Let us say, it was stated because of the House of Hillel. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that it was taught about a straight trellis because of the House of Hillel, and Rebbi Joḥanan agrees with Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] that it was taught about a curved trellis because of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said that anybody who affirms this is in error. If you say it was taught about a straight trellis, what can be in error? What is the difference between him who says one measures from the roots of the vines and him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if the stems were partially inside four cubits and partially outside of four cubits. For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, where the string drawn from the fence ends it is forbidden, the rest is permitted. If there were two cubits, only two cubits are forbidden for him who says one measures from the roots of the vines, but for him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, another two cubits are forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, all three said the same thing. Rebbi Ismael, as we have stated: “About a small garden surrounded by a trellis, if there is room for the vintner and his basket on each side one may sow there, if not, it may not be sown.” Rebbi Jonah said, the vintner requires one cubit, his basket one cubit on each side. They wanted to say, for him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, do the stems not diminish the measure of four cubits? Explain it if they were clinging to the wall. But are there not only four and the rules of the trellis start with five? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, explain it that two vines are planted at a corner; if one stretches a rope one sees four intervals. Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “If there are less than four cubits one should not bring seeds there.” For him who says one measures from the roots of the vine, all is in order. For him who says one measures from the bottom of the fence, does the stem not decrease the measure of four cubits? Explain it if it was clinging to the wall. And similarly Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri here. It is reasonable to assume that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael will agree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri will not agree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rebbi Ismael but Rebbi Ismael will not agree with Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned an interrupted trellis. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned between the trellis and the fence. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: It is understandable, if he burned an interrupted trellis then the words of the Sages disagree with his. But if he burned between the trellis and the fence, are there words of the Sages which disagree with his? He had not heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the trellis itself: Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden and sanctifies. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is forbidden but does not sanctify.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned an interrupted trellis. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned between the trellis and the fence. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: It is understandable, if he burned an interrupted trellis then the words of the Sages disagree with his. But if he burned between the trellis and the fence, are there words of the Sages which disagree with his? He had not heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the trellis itself: Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden and sanctifies. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is forbidden but does not sanctify.

There, we have stated (Mishnah ‘Uqeẓin 3:6): “Unripe figs and grapes, Rebbi Aqiba said they may become impure by the impurity of food; Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said only after they come to the period of tithing.” We have stated here “immediately” but is it “not immediately”? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Mishnah speaks only about unripe figs, but unripe fruit of any other kind may not become impure by the impurity of food until it reaches the period of tithing. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah implies this: “Unripe figs when they started to be radiant one eats them with his bread in the field.” Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees about the Sabbatical year. “Everybody agrees,” the colleagues said that the figs do not become impure by the impurity of food.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

It was stated: “ Water on the ground forty seah. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, that a Šiḥin amphora can be filled from it. Wine both in vessels and on the ground in any quantity. Wine is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is fermenting. How long does it ferment? Three days. It happened that a snake was found near a wine vat; the case came before Rebbi Jehudah and he permitted it. A source is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is running. Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa went down to my father Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri to Bet Serii; he showed him a pool that contained only three log of water, into which rain water was dripping. He bowed down and drank, saying this is an example of what is not under the rules of uncovering.”

It was stated: “ Water on the ground forty seah. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, that a Šiḥin amphora can be filled from it. Wine both in vessels and on the ground in any quantity. Wine is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is fermenting. How long does it ferment? Three days. It happened that a snake was found near a wine vat; the case came before Rebbi Jehudah and he permitted it. A source is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is running. Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa went down to my father Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri to Bet Serii; he showed him a pool that contained only three log of water, into which rain water was dripping. He bowed down and drank, saying this is an example of what is not under the rules of uncovering.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.

MISHNAH: If two women each made a qab and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated, different kinds are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.

Was is left? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaїm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting, exempt when mixed.

“Rebbi Tarphon says, one kindles only with olive oil.” “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri got on his feet and said, if it is so what should the people of Babylonia do who have only sesame oil? What should the people of Media do who have only nut oil? What should the people of Alexandria do who have only radish oil? What should the people of Kappadokia do who have neither one nor the other (but naphtha)? But you have only what the earlier ones permitted.”

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rebbi Simeon [ben Menassia] permits.” Rav comes following Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rebbi Joḥanan following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Meïr says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rebbi Simeon [ben Menassia] permits.” Rav comes following Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rebbi Joḥanan following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Meïr says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does [not] follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. (We asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.) We asked about it, we would think this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him? Samuel said, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, for example what we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”? He told him, did I not say Eruvin but partitions? Cahana shares Samuel’s opinion. Therefore it was necessary to say that practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does [not] follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. (We asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.) We asked about it, we would think this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him? Samuel said, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, for example what we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”? He told him, did I not say Eruvin but partitions? Cahana shares Samuel’s opinion. Therefore it was necessary to say that practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does [not] follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. (We asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.) We asked about it, we would think this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him? Samuel said, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, for example what we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”? He told him, did I not say Eruvin but partitions? Cahana shares Samuel’s opinion. Therefore it was necessary to say that practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is [not] made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

MISHNAH: If somebody slept on the road and did not realize that night fell he has 2’000 cubits in every direction, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but the Sages say, he only has four cubits. Rebbi Eleazar says, he is in the center; Rebbi Jehudah says, in any direction which he chooses. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he selected one he cannot retract it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody slept on the road and did not realize until after night fell,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥasdai. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri: Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, when he was sleeping he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah says, even awake and he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah’s statement follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s (and exceeds Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s). For Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, if he was awake and did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody slept on the road and did not realize until after night fell,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥasdai. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri: Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, when he was sleeping he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah says, even awake and he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah’s statement follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s (and exceeds Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s). For Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, if he was awake and did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody slept on the road and did not realize until after night fell,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥasdai. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri: Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, when he was sleeping he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah says, even awake and he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah’s statement follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s (and exceeds Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s). For Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, if he was awake and did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody slept on the road and did not realize until after night fell,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥasdai. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri: Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, when he was sleeping he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah says, even awake and he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah’s statement follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s (and exceeds Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s). For Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, if he was awake and did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction.

Rebbi Ḥuna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked: if a proselyte immersed himself after sunrise. “Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain,” what does Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri say in this case? Let us hear from the following. For Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. If he selected while it still was daytime, he may change his mind while it still is daytime; after nightfall he may change his mind after nightfall. If he selected while it still was daytime, and the day became holy for him? Let us hear from the following: “he may not enter, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, he may enter” Not on this was it said, but on the start of the Chapter; on “if somebody was taken out by Gentiles or an evil spirit,” it was said . Rebbi Abun said, “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he selected one he cannot retract it.”

Rebbi Ḥuna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked: if a proselyte immersed himself after sunrise. “Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain,” what does Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri say in this case? Let us hear from the following. For Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. If he selected while it still was daytime, he may change his mind while it still is daytime; after nightfall he may change his mind after nightfall. If he selected while it still was daytime, and the day became holy for him? Let us hear from the following: “he may not enter, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, he may enter” Not on this was it said, but on the start of the Chapter; on “if somebody was taken out by Gentiles or an evil spirit,” it was said . Rebbi Abun said, “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he selected one he cannot retract it.”

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, for what is this needed? For what we have stated, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob”. But following the rabbis? The rabbis disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, for what is this needed? For what we have stated, “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob”. But following the rabbis? The rabbis disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and following Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, and we asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? We asked about it, we would think to say that this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and following Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, and we asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? We asked about it, we would think to say that this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and following Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, and we asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? We asked about it, we would think to say that this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him?

Costos as we have stated, “costos, and cardamon, and important spices may be bought with tithe money but do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, if they may be bought with tithe money they become impure by impurity of foodstuff, and if they do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff they may not be bought with tithe money.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive: they become impure by impurity of foodstuff and may not be bought with tithe money.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”? He said to him, in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

(where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. If he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? There is a difference since it is written, family and family, country and country, and town and town.)

Rebbi Yose said, I found a child of the family Eutinos. I said to him, my son, from which family are you? he told me, from family X. I said to him, my son, because your forefathers intended to increase their prestige and to decrease Heaven’s prestige, therefore their prestige was diminished and Heaven’s prestige increased. Rebbi Aqiba said, Simeon ben Lagos told me, I was collecting herbs, I and a youth from the family Eutinos, when I saw him crying and laughing. I said to him, my son, why did you cry? He said to me, about the prestige of my family which is diminished. And why did you laugh? About the glory prepared for the Just in the future world; there is smoke-creating herb before me! I said to him, my son, show it to me. He answered me, I have a tradition from my ancestors not to show it to any creature.’ Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, I met an old man from the family Eutinos. He said to me, ‘Rabbi. In the past my family were humble, and transmitting this scroll one to the other. But now they are not trustworthy; here the scroll is yours and take care of it.’ When I came and repeated these words before Rebbi Aqiba, his tears flowed and he said, from now on we do not have to mention them for shame.”

Rebbi Yose said, I found a child of the family Eutinos. I said to him, my son, from which family are you? he told me, from family X. I said to him, my son, because your forefathers intended to increase their prestige and to decrease Heaven’s prestige, therefore their prestige was diminished and Heaven’s prestige increased. Rebbi Aqiba said, Simeon ben Lagos told me, I was collecting herbs, I and a youth from the family Eutinos, when I saw him crying and laughing. I said to him, my son, why did you cry? He said to me, about the prestige of my family which is diminished. And why did you laugh? About the glory prepared for the Just in the future world. [What did you see?] There is smoke-creating herb before me! I said to him, my son, show it to me. He answered me, I have a tradition from my ancestors not to show it to any creature.’ Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, I met an old man from the family Eutinos [who held a scroll about chemicals.]. He said to me, ‘Rabbi. In the past my family were humble, and transmitting this scroll one to the other. But now they are not trustworthy; here the scroll is yours and take care of it.’ When I came and repeated these words before Rebbi Aqiba, his tears flowed and he said, from now on we do not have to mention them for shame.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥaninah: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar; he showed him a field called Bet Rata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient.

It is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel had pictures of the moon phases on a tablet and on the wall on his upper floor which he showed to the common people and asked, did you see it like this or like that? It happened that two came and said, we saw it in the morning in the East and in the evening in the West. Rebbi Joḥanan {ben Nuri} said, they are false witnesses. Rabban Gamliel accepted them when they came to Jabneh. Another time two came and said, we saw it on time, and in the night of the addition it was not seen, but Rabban Gamliel accepted them. Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos said, they are false witnesses. How can one testify about a woman that she gave birth and the next day she is in labor pains? Rebbi Joshua said to him, I am agreeing with your words.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simlai said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri is that for any month which starts before noontime the eye is not able to see the old moon. And it was stated thus: If the old moon was seen in the morning, the new moon is not seen in the evening. If the new moon was seen in the evening the old moon was not seen in the morning. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, why did Rabban Gamliel accept them? Because he had a tradition from his forefathers that sometimes it moves in a shortcut, sometimes it moves on an extended path.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?