obligated

Rebbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated, for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Rebbi Jonah understood the text from its end, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield for you.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? If he planted for fencing, logs, or wood, kinds appropriate for that use. If he planted an inappropriate kind it is obligated.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it correctly, what is the reason of the rabbis? Rebbi Zeïra said, if he changed the way it is usually planted: For wood tightly together, for logs cutting off branches, for a fence the location of the fence proves it.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn], sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn], sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn], sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joẓadaq: A vine growing in a copse is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose said, even if he planted it. But did we not state: “If it grew by itself it is obligated for ‘orlah”? There, when it was planted in a cultivated place, but here if it was planted in a copse. Rebbi Eleazar said, this means if its yield is not worth its tending but if its yield is worth its tending it is obligated.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joẓadaq: A vine growing in a copse is exempt from ‘orlah. Rebbi Yose said, even if he planted it. But did we not state: “If it grew by itself it is obligated for ‘orlah”? There, when it was planted in a cultivated place, but here if it was planted in a copse. Rebbi Eleazar said, this means if its yield is not worth its tending but if its yield is worth its tending it is obligated.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?

If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?

If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?

It was stated: “If a tree is partially planted in the Land and partially outside the Land, since it is partially planted in the Land it is as if completely planted in the Land, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the part planted in the Land is obligated, the part planted outside the Land is free.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is as if ṭevel and tithed are mixed together.

An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.

If one bound it to an old tree it is exempt, to [a tree] outside the Land it is exempt. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated, to the lower or upper part it is obligated. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated because one might redeem it and make it obligated. To the lower part it is obligated because he might think about and obligate it.

If one bound it to an old tree it is exempt, to [a tree] outside the Land it is exempt. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated, to the lower or upper part it is obligated. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated because one might redeem it and make it obligated. To the lower part it is obligated because he might think about and obligate it.

If one bound it to an old tree it is exempt, to [a tree] outside the Land it is exempt. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated, to the lower or upper part it is obligated. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated because one might redeem it and make it obligated. To the lower part it is obligated because he might think about and obligate it.

If one bound it to an old tree it is exempt, to [a tree] outside the Land it is exempt. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated, to the lower or upper part it is obligated. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated because one might redeem it and make it obligated. To the lower part it is obligated because he might think about and obligate it.

If one bound it to an old tree it is exempt, to [a tree] outside the Land it is exempt. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated, to the lower or upper part it is obligated. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated because one might redeem it and make it obligated. To the lower part it is obligated because he might think about and obligate it.

MISHNAH: When our forefathers came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts. If somebody plants on public property, the Non-Jew who planted, the robber who planted, and he who plants on a ship, are obligated for ‘orlah.

MISHNAH: When our forefathers came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts. If somebody plants on public property, the Non-Jew who planted, the robber who planted, and he who plants on a ship, are obligated for ‘orlah.

MISHNAH: When our forefathers came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts. If somebody plants on public property, the Non-Jew who planted, the robber who planted, and he who plants on a ship, are obligated for ‘orlah.

“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings” said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ‘orlah. It was also stated thus: (Num. 15:18) “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same, “breaking” and “smashing” is the same, “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same, and here he takes note of a change in expression!

“If he planted for the public benefit, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts”. The rabbis seem inconsistent. There, they say: “Jerusalem and outside the Land cannot become impure by skin disease,” but here, they say so! There (Lev. 14:35) “the owner of the house comes”, excluding Jerusalem which was not distributed among the tribes. But here, (Lev. 19:21) “when you plant,” in any way.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for ‘orlah. If it grew by itself it is exempt from ‘orlah.” If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

It was stated: “If a Gentile grafted a food-tree on a futile tree, even though a Jew is not permitted to do this, it is obligated for ‘orlah.” From when does one count ‘orlah? From the moment it is planted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only those for which intent is important; for example carob trees from Ẓalmon or Gidud; but on a willow it is as if planted in the earth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even on a willow. But did we not state: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted it should be uprooted.” According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who will explain it by grafting on a willow it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said even on a willow, why should it be uprooted? There is a difference because they unite in the Sabbatical year. And that is what has been said, “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: There is no “grafted” here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, even for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no “grafted” here; for the past, certainly not to start out with.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A tree planted inside a house is obligated for ‘orlah but free from tithes since it is written (Deut. 14:22): “You shall certainly tithe all yield of your seeds which comes from the field.” For the Sabbatical it is problematic since it is written (Lev. 25:5): “The Land shall celebrate a Sabbath for the Eternal.” And it is written (Lev. 25:6): “You shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard.”

MISHNAH: If a tree was moved with its lump, if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plough displaced it and turned it into dust, if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it is exempt. How large shall the root be? Rabban Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle. If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rebbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If a tree was moved with its lump, if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plough displaced it and turned it into dust, if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it is exempt. How large shall the root be? Rabban Gamliel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle. If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rebbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If it could survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

HALAKHAH: “One does not bring First Fruits”, etc. If it were written (Deut. 26:2): “You shall take the First Fruits of your land”, I would have said that all kinds should be obligated for First Fruits. The verse says,“from the First Fruits”, not all firsts. If “from the first” and not all first, then you have only wheat and barley. The verse says “fruits of your land”; this is inclusive. Does it include everything? Here “your land” has been said; at another place “the Land of wheat and barley” has been said. Since “land” mentioned there deals with the Seven Kinds, so also “land” mentioned in this verse must deal with the Seven Kinds.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, I am stating this as the opinion of a single individuum. It was stated thus: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For the replacement one is not obligated for a fifth.” Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Huna: The replacement one even buys on the market. How do you treat these? As addition of First Fruits or adornment of First Fruits? If you treat them as addition to First Fruits they are not under the rules of demay. If you treat them as adornment of First Fruits they are under the rules of demay.

Rebbi Joḥanan went to a place and said, I am Ben Azai here. There came an old man to ask him. He said, “the growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, second tithe and first tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane.” There, you say their growth is permitted, why do you say here, their growth is forbidden? He said to him, where do we say their growth is permitted? For things whose seeds disappear. Where do we say their growth is forbidden? For things whose seeds do not disappear. He said to him, but did we not state: “What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions.” Are arum, garlic, and onions obligated for First Fruits? He said, the Ben Azai from here went away as you say. He asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, for tithe everything was classified as things whose seeds do not disappear.

“It is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]. Rebbi Eleazar frees.” Since Rebbi Eleazar says that now he is in doubt, he says “free”. But the Sages, who teach that it is an original species, say “obligated.”

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

MISHNAH: A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath. Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for one purification sacrifice only. But one who knows the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single Sabbath; and one who knows that it is the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single work. One who performs many works similar to one work is obligated only for one purification sacrifice.

MISHNAH: A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath. Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for one purification sacrifice only. But one who knows the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single Sabbath; and one who knows that it is the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single work. One who performs many works similar to one work is obligated only for one purification sacrifice.

MISHNAH: A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath. Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for one purification sacrifice only. But one who knows the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single Sabbath; and one who knows that it is the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single work. One who performs many works similar to one work is obligated only for one purification sacrifice.

MISHNAH: A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath. Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for one purification sacrifice only. But one who knows the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single Sabbath; and one who knows that it is the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single work. One who performs many works similar to one work is obligated only for one purification sacrifice.

MISHNAH: They said another principle. Anything which can be preserved and one preserves its kind if he took it out on the Sabbath he is obligated for a purification sacrifice because of it, but for anything which cannot be preserved and one does not preserve its kind, if he took it out on the Sabbath only the one who preserves is obligated.

MISHNAH: They said another principle. Anything which can be preserved and one preserves its kind if he took it out on the Sabbath he is obligated for a purification sacrifice because of it, but for anything which cannot be preserved and one does not preserve its kind, if he took it out on the Sabbath only the one who preserves is obligated.

The House of Rebbi Yannai are saying, even a peg to hang his shoes on. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, even a metal plate, even a table. Rav said, but only what may be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba said, it happened that a person had a chicken coop inside another person’s house, where he could enter without asking for permission. The case came before Rav who said, since he is obligated to give them water it is as if it could be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Samuel: The students of Rebbi Joḥanan ascended to Akhbara and relied on the statement of Rebbi Yannai. Ḥizqiah does not say so but: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi ascended to Akhbara and heard from the House of Rebbi Yannai that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination. But the Sages say, he who did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth has to check on the Fourteenth; he who did not check on the Fourteenth has to check on the holiday. He who did not check on the holiday has to check after the holiday. And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking.

“And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking.” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it. I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following: “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves”. And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread. And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it.

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.

MISHNAH: Dough in crannies of the baking trough: if there is the volume of an olive at one place one is obligated to eliminate; less than this becomes insignificant. Similarly in matters of impurity, if he is bothered by it it separates; if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough. Deaf dough is forbidden if a similar kind became sour.

MISHNAH: Similarly, he who brings Sabbatical produce from a place where it was exhausted to one where it was not exhausted or from a place where it was not exhausted to one where it was exhausted is obligated to eliminate. Rebbi Jehudah says, go and get it for yourself.

If somebody ate the volume of an olive raw when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not eat from it raw, in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted he is under obligation not to eat raw; at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted he is not obligated not to eat raw.

If somebody ate the volume of an olive raw when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not eat from it raw, in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted he is under obligation not to eat raw; at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted he is not obligated not to eat raw.

If somebody ate the volume of an olive raw when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not eat from it raw, in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted he is under obligation not to eat raw; at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted he is not obligated not to eat raw.

If he broke a bone of it when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not break a bone in it etc., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted there is no do not break a bone in it; at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted there is do not break a bone in it.

If he broke a bone of it when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not break a bone in it etc., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted there is no do not break a bone in it; at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted there is do not break a bone in it.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served; he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine was served. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited. Another explanation: The wine is frequent, Sanctification is less frequent.

Rebbi Yose said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, the wine comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that the Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served? But here, Havdalah does {not} cause the wine to be served; wine therefore has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine is frequent, Sanctification of the Day is less frequent? Also here, wine is frequent and Havdalah is less frequent: the wine has precedence. Rebbi Mana said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, Havdalah comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine came? Also here, since he is obligated for Havdalah before the wine came, Havdalah has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited? But here, the wine does {not} cause Havdalah to be recited: Havdalah has precedence.

Rebbi Yose said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, the wine comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that the Sanctification of the Day causes the wine to be served? But here, Havdalah does {not} cause the wine to be served; wine therefore has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine is frequent, Sanctification of the Day is less frequent? Also here, wine is frequent and Havdalah is less frequent: the wine has precedence. Rebbi Mana said: From the words of both of them it follows that for wine and Havdalah, Havdalah comes first. Is not the reason of the House of Shammai that he was obligated for the Sanctification of the Day before the wine came? Also here, since he is obligated for Havdalah before the wine came, Havdalah has precedence. Is not the reason of the House of Hillel that the wine causes the Sanctification of the Day to be recited? But here, the wine does {not} cause Havdalah to be recited: Havdalah has precedence.

If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? May a person think of half an atonement? But it is so: If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups [and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups,] to give from one between the beams, and from one on the gobelins, and from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hila, since they disagreed:

If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? May a person think of half an atonement? But it is so: If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups [and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups,] to give from one between the beams, and from one on the gobelins, and from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hila, since they disagreed:

MISHNAH: Thirteen horns were in the Temple, and it was written on them: New sheqalim, and old sheqalim, nests, young birds for elevation sacrifices, wood, and incense, gold for the cover, and six for voluntary gifts. New sheqalim for the current year, and old ones, one who did not bring the past year, gives it for the next one. “Nests” are turtle doves and “young birds as elevation offerings” are pigeons, all for elevation offerings, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, of “nests” one is a purification offering and one an elevation offering; “young birds as elevation offerings” are all elevation offerings. If one says, “I am obligated for wood logs”, he may not give less than for two logs; “incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful; “gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar. “Six for voluntary gifts.” What did they do with this? One buys with it elevation offerings; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. This explanation did Jehoyada the High Priest explain: It is a reparation offering, repairing, a reparation offering for the Eternal; this is the principle: Elevation offerings should be bought from anything coming because of sin or reparation; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. It turns out that both parts of the verse are fulfilled, a reparation offering for the Eternal and reparation for the Cohanim. And it says, money for reparation offerings and money for purification offerings are not to be brought to the Eternal’s House, it shall be for the Cohanim.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If he said, I am obligated [to offer] a log, does he bring one log? Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah says that each one is a separate sacrifice, as we have stated, “two, holding in their hands two wooden logs.” This adds single logs.

Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed. We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there, “if the thatching was three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” But a house is completely enclosed, a sukkah is not completely enclosed. If a porch was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of] Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. Up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the thatching; from twenty cubits and higher he sits in the shade of the walls. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if you are saying, if it is put higher than twenty cubits on the walls. But if it was put lower than twenty cubits inside the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said to him, in your opinion, since you are saying that it is depending on the walls, it should state that “a sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits on the walls is disqualified.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table. But if it holds more it is qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia, only if its walls do not reach up all the way, but if its walls reach up all the way it is qualified. But does not a baraita disagree? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena in Lydda was higher than twenty cubits and the Sages were coming and going there and nobody was saying a word. They said to him, because she was a woman, and a woman is not obligated. He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons?” Could you say that the sukkah of Queen Helena only held a person’s head, most of his body, and his table? But it must be that the walls do not reach up all the way. What Rebbi Josia said is reasonable and the baraita does not disagree, since it is the way of rich people to make their walls airy so that cool air may enter.

Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed. We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there, “if the thatching was three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” But a house is completely enclosed, a sukkah is not completely enclosed. If a porch was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of] Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. Up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the thatching; from twenty cubits and higher he sits in the shade of the walls. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if you are saying, if it is put higher than twenty cubits on the walls. But if it was put lower than twenty cubits inside the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said to him, in your opinion, since you are saying that it is depending on the walls, it should state that “a sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits on the walls is disqualified.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table. But if it holds more it is qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia, only if its walls do not reach up all the way, but if its walls reach up all the way it is qualified. But does not a baraita disagree? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena in Lydda was higher than twenty cubits and the Sages were coming and going there and nobody was saying a word. They said to him, because she was a woman, and a woman is not obligated. He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons?” Could you say that the sukkah of Queen Helena only held a person’s head, most of his body, and his table? But it must be that the walls do not reach up all the way. What Rebbi Josia said is reasonable and the baraita does not disagree, since it is the way of rich people to make their walls airy so that cool air may enter.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer said, a person is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, one during daytime and one in the night. But the Sages are saying, there is no fixed amount except only for the night of the first day of the holiday. In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, one who did not eat on the first day of the holiday makes it up in the night of the last day of the holiday. But the Sages are saying, this cannot be made up, and on this it was said, what is distorted cannot be fixed, and a deficiency cannot be filled.

It was stated in Rebbi Eliezer’s name: He who did not make his sukkah before the holiday may not make it on the holiday. But did not Bar Qappara state, if his sukkah collapsed on the holiday, he shall rebuild it on the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Eliezer punished him because he did not make his sukkah before the holiday. Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion seems inverted. There, he says, a person is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, and here he says so? Rebbi Aḥa said, they were compared as commandments.

MISHNAH: Women, slaves, and minors are not obligated for the sukkah. Any minor who does not need his mother is obligated for the sukkah. It happened that the Elder Shammai’s daughter-in-law gave birth and he removed the roof insulation and thatched the roof over the bed for the minor.

MISHNAH: Women, slaves, and minors are not obligated for the sukkah. Any minor who does not need his mother is obligated for the sukkah. It happened that the Elder Shammai’s daughter-in-law gave birth and he removed the roof insulation and thatched the roof over the bed for the minor.

HALAKHAH: What is a minor? In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, any who needs his mother to cleanse him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any who awakes from his sleep and cries “Mamma”. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Any minor who does not need his mother is obligated for the sukkah but goes out with his mother’s eruv.

Rebbi Hoshaya stated: One answers Amen even if he did not eat, but he may not say: “Let us praise Him, of Whose bounty we ate,” except if he did eat. It is stated: “One answers neither an orphan Amen, nor a plucked Amen. What is an orphan Amen? Rebbi Huna said, that is one who is obligated to recite a blessing, he answers Amen, and is not conscious for what he answered Amen. It is stated: One answers Amen after a Gentile who recited a benediction for the Eternal, but if he recited a benediction with the Name one does not answer. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, if a Gentile blesses you, answer after him Amen since it is written You shall be blessed by all peoples. A Gentile met Rebbi Ismael and blessed him. He answered: The word about you has already been said. He met a second one who cursed him; he answered: The word about you has already been said. His students said to him: Rebbi, did you say to the one what you said to the other? He said to them, so it is written Those who curse you are cursed, but those who bless you are blessed.

MISHNAH: A woman may receive from her son’s hand or her husband’s hand and return it to the water on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jehudah says, on the Sabbath one returns, on the holiday one adds, on the intermediate days one exchanges. A minor who knows how to move is obligated for the lulav.

HALAKHAH: If he knows how to move he is obligated for lulav. If he knows how to dress, he is obligated for ṣiṣit. If he knows how to talk, his father teaches him the language of the Torah. If he knows how to keep his hands clean, one eats heave on his hands. If he knows how to keep his body clean, one eats food in purity on his body. But he does not go before the Ark, nor lift his hands, nor stands on the podium, before he grows a beard. Rebbi says, all of them at the age of twenty years, as it is said: They appointed the Levites, twenty years or older, to direct the work of the Eternal’s House.

HALAKHAH: If he knows how to move he is obligated for lulav. If he knows how to dress, he is obligated for ṣiṣit. If he knows how to talk, his father teaches him the language of the Torah. If he knows how to keep his hands clean, one eats heave on his hands. If he knows how to keep his body clean, one eats food in purity on his body. But he does not go before the Ark, nor lift his hands, nor stands on the podium, before he grows a beard. Rebbi says, all of them at the age of twenty years, as it is said: They appointed the Levites, twenty years or older, to direct the work of the Eternal’s House.

MISHNAH: How Hallel and joy eight? This shows that a person is obligated to honor the last day of the festival like all other days of the festival. How the sukkah seven? If he finished eating one may not undo his sukkah but one removes his vessels after afternoon prayers in honor of the last day of the festival.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the (last) [first] festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the (first) [last] day of the festival? Only split. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be jouyouson your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, hallel and joy eight? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the (last) [first] festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the (first) [last] day of the festival? Only split. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be jouyouson your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, hallel and joy eight? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

MISHNAH: A deaf-and-dumb person, an insane person, or a minor, may not free the public from their obligation. This is the principle: Anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ze`ira, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: one is obligated to say, the Holy Power. Rebbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Rav Ḥuna: the Holy Power Who forgives much. Rabbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: In prayer he says, David’s God and Builder of Jerusalem. For Prophets he says, David’s God Who causes help to blossom. On the holiday of New Year’s Day which falls on a Sabbath, there are Tannaim who state, he starts with the holiday and closes with the Sabbath. [There are Tannaim who state, he starts with the Sabbath and closes with the holiday.] Rebbi says, he starts with the Sabbath and closes with the Sabbath with the holiday in between. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi.

MISHNAH: The order of shofar blowing is three times three each. The measure of a straight sound is that of three modulated sounds. The measure of a modulated sound are three whimpers. If he blew straight for the first set and continued a double length for the second he has only one in his hand. If somebody prayed and later has access to a shofar, he blows straight, modulated, and straight three times. A private person is obligated just as the public reader is obligated; Rabban Gamliel says, the public reader absolves the public from their obligation.

MISHNAH: The order of shofar blowing is three times three each. The measure of a straight sound is that of three modulated sounds. The measure of a modulated sound are three whimpers. If he blew straight for the first set and continued a double length for the second he has only one in his hand. If somebody prayed and later has access to a shofar, he blows straight, modulated, and straight three times. A private person is obligated just as the public reader is obligated; Rabban Gamliel says, the public reader absolves the public from their obligation.

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.

Rebbi Hoshaya stated: One answers Amen even if he did not eat, but he may not say: “Let us praise Him, of Whose bounty we ate,” except if he did eat. It is stated: “One answers neither an orphan Amen, nor a plucked Amen. Ben Azai said, if one answered an orphan Amen, may his children be orphans; hurried, may the end of his days be hurried; plucked, may his soul be plucked off. For a long Amen, they lengthen his days and years in a good way. What is an orphan Amen? Rebbi Huna said, that is one who is obligated to recite a blessing, he answers Amen, and is not conscious for what he answered Amen. It is stated: One answers Amen after a Gentile who recited a benediction for the Eternal. By the Name, one does not answer Amen after him. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, if a Gentile blesses you, answer after him Amen since it is written You shall be blessed by all peoples. A Gentile met Rebbi Ismael and blessed him. He answered: The word about you has already been said. He met a second one who cursed him; he answered: The word about you has already been said. His students said to him: Rebbi, did you say to the one what you said to the other? He said to them, so it is written Those who curse you are cursed, but those who bless you are blessed.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if it was written in Greek. Where do we hold? If it was written in square script and he translated it into Greek, that is what we have stated “in any language.” If it was written in Greek and he translated it into {the language of} square script, that is what was stated, which is the difference between Torah scrolls and the Esther scroll? Only that Torah scrolls may be written in any language but the Esther scroll may only be written in square script. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if it was written gignton. Samuel stated: If in error he omitted one verse but the translator translated it, he fulfilled his obligation. We are saying “in any language,” and you are saying so? Samuel follows his opinion [since] Samuel said, if it was written according to its rules the Greek speaker fulfills his obligation in Greek. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he knows the language of square script and he knows Greek, he fulfills his obligation [in Greek or] in the language of square script. Greek, he fulfills his obligation in Greek. If he knows the language of square script and he knows Greek, may he absolve the public from their obligation in Greek? This shall come following: anybody who is not obligated in a matter cannot not absolve the public of their obligation.

HALAKHAH: One understands the dweller in a walled city whose time is later. Is the time of a village dweller who went to a walled city not earlier? Rebbi Yudan said, there is here no village dweller who went to a walled city. And it was stated in the House of Rebbi so: the dweller in a walled city who went to a village. Rebbi Yose said, also here if he will stay with them. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left before dawn, but if he left after dawn he already is not liable. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, then a proselyte who circumcised after dawn already is not liable? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the village dweller who changed his abode in the night of the Fifteenth [is obligated here; and a dweller in a walled city who changed his abode in the night of the Fourteenth] is not liable at either place?

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.

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.

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

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

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

It follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagrees with Ben Azzai, as we have stated there: “From here Ben Azzai said, a person is obligated to teach Torah to his daughter, that in case she would drink she knows that merit suspends.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the las festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the firs day of the festival? Or inverse? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be joyous on your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, “hallel and joy eight”? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.