permits

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody in divorcing his wife,” etc. Rebbi Ilai said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer: “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”, even if he did permit her only to one other man. This argument proves more than the Mishnah! The Mishnah said if she was permitted to all but forbidden to one other man; the argument is that he forbade her to all but permitted her only to one other man. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Death permits and divorce permits. Since death permits only partially, so the bill of divorce permits only partially. What is the reason of the rabbis? “She left his house, went, and became another man’s”; it brackets marriage and divorce. Since her divorce is without participation of a third party, so her marriage must be without participation of a third party.

By a document. Since money which does not send out permits to enter, would it not be logical that a document which sends out should permit to enter? No. If you speak about money which eliminates dedication through redemption, what can you say about a document which does not eliminate dedication through redemption? The argument de minore ad majus is broken and you have to return to Scripture. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “He shall write her a bill of divorce, hand it to her, and send her out of his house. If she left his house and went to be another man’s.” It brackets her being with her leaving. Since her leaving was by a document, so her being is by a document.

“One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” That disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar in two respects. If during its lifetime, it disagrees following the rabbis; if after breaking the neck, it disagrees following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Explain it that it died. If he broke its neck, it is forbidden for usufruct, but Rebbi Simeon permits it. “Breaking the neck, breaking the neck.” Since “breaking the neck” mentioned there implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct, so “breaking of the neck” mentioned here implies that one has to break its neck, [bury it,] and it is forbidden for usufruct. Following Rebbi Eleazar it is understandable. He permits during its lifetime; he needs an argument to forbid it after the breaking of the neck. Following Rebbi Joḥanan it is difficult. If it is forbidden during its lifetime, not so much more after breaking of its neck? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: It is needed following the rabbis, lest you say that since the Torah combined the breaking of its neck with its redemption, and its redemption makes it profane, so also the breaking of its neck should make it profane. Do we find anything whose lifting makes profane and which is forbidden for usufruct? They objected: There is ṭevel containing the tithe of the poor which becomes totally profane by its lifting; but Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rebbi: A person eating produce which is ṭevel for the tithe of the poor is guilty of a deadly sin. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: So the rabbis answer Rebbi Simeon: Do we find anything that needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct? He replied to them: There is the first-born human who needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct.

“One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” That disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar in two respects. If during its lifetime, it disagrees following the rabbis; if after breaking the neck, it disagrees following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Explain it that it died. If he broke its neck, it is forbidden for usufruct, but Rebbi Simeon permits it. “Breaking the neck, breaking the neck.” Since “breaking the neck” mentioned there implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct, so “breaking of the neck” mentioned here implies that one has to break its neck, [bury it,] and it is forbidden for usufruct. Following Rebbi Eleazar it is understandable. He permits during its lifetime; he needs an argument to forbid it after the breaking of the neck. Following Rebbi Joḥanan it is difficult. If it is forbidden during its lifetime, not so much more after breaking of its neck? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: It is needed following the rabbis, lest you say that since the Torah combined the breaking of its neck with its redemption, and its redemption makes it profane, so also the breaking of its neck should make it profane. Do we find anything whose lifting makes profane and which is forbidden for usufruct? They objected: There is ṭevel containing the tithe of the poor which becomes totally profane by its lifting; but Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rebbi: A person eating produce which is ṭevel for the tithe of the poor is guilty of a deadly sin. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: So the rabbis answer Rebbi Simeon: Do we find anything that needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct? He replied to them: There is the first-born human who needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct.

“One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” That disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar in two respects. If during its lifetime, it disagrees following the rabbis; if after breaking the neck, it disagrees following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Explain it that it died. If he broke its neck, it is forbidden for usufruct, but Rebbi Simeon permits it. “Breaking the neck, breaking the neck.” Since “breaking the neck” mentioned there implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct, so “breaking of the neck” mentioned here implies that one has to break its neck, [bury it,] and it is forbidden for usufruct. Following Rebbi Eleazar it is understandable. He permits during its lifetime; he needs an argument to forbid it after the breaking of the neck. Following Rebbi Joḥanan it is difficult. If it is forbidden during its lifetime, not so much more after breaking of its neck? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: It is needed following the rabbis, lest you say that since the Torah combined the breaking of its neck with its redemption, and its redemption makes it profane, so also the breaking of its neck should make it profane. Do we find anything whose lifting makes profane and which is forbidden for usufruct? They objected: There is ṭevel containing the tithe of the poor which becomes totally profane by its lifting; but Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rebbi: A person eating produce which is ṭevel for the tithe of the poor is guilty of a deadly sin. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: So the rabbis answer Rebbi Simeon: Do we find anything that needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct? He replied to them: There is the first-born human who needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct.

MISHNAH: One distances a soaking pond from vegetables, and leeks from onions, and mustard from bees. Rebbi Yose permits mustard.

HALAKHAH: “One distances a soaking pond,” etc. It was stated: One distances an onion bed from leeks, but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it. Rebbi Jacob ben Dosai said, from these teachings [it follows] that mutually they have to distance themselves one from the other. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Because the bees’ mouth becomes sharp and they destroy the honey.

MISHNAH: One makes no hollow under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, and caves. Rebbi Eliezer permits if a cart filled with stones can pass over it. One does not build protrusions and balconies above the public domain but if he wishes he builds inside his own property and adds them. If somebody bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, that remains a right of possession.

And like planted nails. Why does he not say, “like fixed nails and planted trees”? They chose and selected the iron and improved the planting of iron rods. Another explanation, and like planted nails. Just as this nail, once it has been fixed, if you then remove it from its place, its place remains visible; so everybody against whom the rabbis stretched out their hand, even if afterwards they took him back, in the end he will take what is coming to him from their hands. Another explanation, and like planted nails; it is written watches. Since there are 24 watches, there should be 24 nails. How many nails should it have? Rebbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥinena said seven, corresponding to your days are your steps. Rebbi Aḥa explained following Rebbi Ḥanina: nine. Rebbi put eleven on one [shoe] and thirteen on the other, for the number of watches. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: may one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. It was stated: One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may anoint them or dip them in water. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. They asked Rebbi, who told them, one does not scrape. Rebbi Zeˋira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rav and were anointing and rinsing, but not scraping. It was stated: A person should wear new boots and sandals only if he walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The people from the house of Bar Qappara said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Study of Rebbi Hoshaia. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rebbi Hoshaia’s store. It was stated: Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it. Another explanation, and like planted nails. If words about Torah are spelled out clearly by their authors, they are sweet to their listeners like well-ordered saplings. But if they come out confused, they are as bitter for their listeners as nails.

The Torah said, four compartments for four paragraphs. If he made five compartments for four paragraphs, he is punishable. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: He is punishable only if he instructs in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he never is punishable unless he deny and instruct in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim, on condition that he simultaneously deduct in a matter which permits subtraction and addition. The face of Rav Hoshaia lit up. He told him, do I need you that you enjoy it? I do not need you, I am adding to your statement. Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah objected, did we not state, “the body of baheret is the square area of a split cilician bean”? Rebbi Abba Mari said, one who said it is pure. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, did we not state, “two paragraphs in the mezuzzah”? He told him, phylacteries and mezuzah are the same. Rav Hamnuna objected, was it not stated: The ṣiṣit must be four finger lengths for four threads? He told him, in that he diminished but did not add. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, was it not stated, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes. If he used it in thirds, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes? He told him, he subtracts from the scalded and adds for round cakes and flat cakes.

MISHNAH: At a place where they used to sell small cattle to Gentiles one sells; at a place where they used not to sell one does not sell; nobody should change this because of controversy. Nowhere does one sell to them large animals, calves, and donkey foals, whole or damaged. Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones; Ben Bathyra permits horses.

MISHNAH: At a place where they used to sell small cattle to Gentiles one sells; at a place where they used not to sell one does not sell; nobody should change this because of controversy. Nowhere does one sell to them large animals, calves, and donkey foals, whole or damaged. Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones; Ben Bathyra permits horses.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a male to it, he fertilizes it and it gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male (horse) [damaged one] which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a female to him, she is fertilized by him and gives birth? Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses? He said to them, Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Ben Bathyra said this only about a male horse because it kills its owner in war. Some say, because it runs after females, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after females, it does not run. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. [Rebbi Aḥa in the name of] Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried out domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a (small) [large] domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Rebbi Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a (large) [small] domestic animal.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell them bears and lions,” etc. Therefore something which does not present a danger to the public one may sell to them. Our Mishnah follows Rebbi. As it was stated: “One who sees snake charmers and conjurers, muqion, mupion, mulion, milarin, milaria, sigillarin, sigillaria, this is forbidden because of ‘seat of the scoffers,’ as it is said, in the seat of scoffers he did not sit. All this leads to neglect of the Torah, as it is said, but in the teachings of the Eternal is his desire. Going to the theater is forbidden as pagan worship, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, when they present offerings it is forbidden because of pagan worship, otherwise it only is forbidden because of ‘seat of scoffers.’ One who goes to the theater to shout; if it is for a public need it is permitted, if to ingratiate himself it is forbidden. One who sits in the stadium is a spiller of blood. Rebbi Nathan permits because of two reasons, because he can shout and save lives, and he can testify for a woman that she can remarry.”

“And Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: does practice follow Rebbi Meïr? As it was stated, “Hadrianic pottery is prohibited and its prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, its prohibition is not of usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: what is the status of the cloth about which we stated here? He was offended by this and told him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible. May one use it to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan says it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.“Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. But did not [Rebbi Yose] state: “From a professional it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him.

HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.“Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. But did not [Rebbi Yose] state: “From a professional it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him.

HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.“Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. But did not [Rebbi Yose] state: “From a professional it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him.

And who permitted it? Rebbi permitted it and his court. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They called him “the court which permitted oil.” Any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. May she be allowed to remarry? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, she is allowed to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, she is forbidden to remarry.

What is the status of their lupines? Rebbi forbids, Ganiba permits. Rebbi said, I am an Elder and he is an Elder. It came to my mind to forbid; it was his opinion to permit. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum went to Tyre and permitted their lupines. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre and found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He returned to Rebbi Joḥanan who asked him, what case came to your hands? He told him, I found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He asked him, did you not hit him? He answered, he is an important personality and knows how to sweeten the waters of the Great Sea. He told him, no, my son. He knows how to compute the waters; when the waters come together to acclaim their Creator they sweeten themselves. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, he starts to speak his disgrace and tells his praise! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a difficult computation; Rebbi Zakkai of Alexandria knows it. He said, if you want, you may learn it from him.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who was found standing next to a wine cistern, if he has a loan secured by it, [the wine] is forbidden, if he has no loan secured by it, it is permitted. If he fell into the cistern and climbed out, or measured it with a measuring rod; if he tried to hit a wasp with a stick, or was drumming on the mouth of a fermenting amphora; all these cases happened and they said, it should be sold, but Rebbi Simeon permits. If he took the amphora and threw it into the cistern; this happened and they declared it kosher..

The following is obvious: If the Jew holds the funnel and the Gentile pours, everybody agrees that is it forbidden. If the Gentile holds the funnel and the Jew pours, Rebbi Assi forbids and Rebbi Immi permits. If the Gentile holds the opening of the wineskin and the Jew pours, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: this is the disagreement. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose, which disagreement? He told him, the disasgreement between Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Immi. If the Jew holds the wineskin and the Gentile pours, they wanted to say that according to everybody it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel: In itself it implies that it is forbidden. For sometimes the Jew will loosen his grip and then the entire pouring is done by the Gentile. If somebody lets down a wineskin from top to bottom this is not pouring from vessel to vessel.

HALAKHAH: “A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched,” etc. Our Mishnah is Rebbi’s. “One of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch.” For pottery it is not following Rebbi, as it was stated: A Gentile’s wine-press, bucket, and funnel, Rebbi permits but the Sa (say). Rebbi agrees that pitchers are forbidden. Why are these forbidden and those permitted? These one fills with it, the others one does not fill with it. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: practice follows Rebbi. If a Gentile pitched a papyrus vessel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel, practice follows Rebbi. It is the disagreement of Rebbi and the Sages, as we have stated: “If somebody’s wine-press was impure and he wants to purify it, the brooms, the planks, and the lentil one rubs dry and they are pure. The wicker-work of wood splinters, or of hemp, or of wood, or of bark, of threads, of bast, one lets age a full twelve months; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from one olive pressing to the next, from one wine pressing to the next. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if he wants to purify it immediately, he puts it for a period in a pipe where water streams, or in a brook whose water flows. Just as one wipes dry for purity so one wipes dry for libation wine.” How much is a period? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, half a day or half a night. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, either a day or a night. Do they disagree? But one when day and night are equal, the other when day and night are unequal.

Rebbi Abba bar Cahana went to a certain place where he found Rebbi Levi installed and preaching: A man to whom God gives riches, and properties, and honor,and nothing is missing of anything he might desire, but God does not let him take possession to eat from it, for a stranger will eat from it.Riches, that is Scripture. Properties, these are practices. And honor, these are the additions. And nothing is missing of anything he might desire, these are the great Mishnah collections, such as the Mishnah of Rebbi Ḥuna, the Mishnah of Rebbi Hoshaia, or the Mishnah of Bar Qappara. But God does not let him take possession to eat from it, that is the master of Aggadah who neither prohibits nor permits, neither declares impure nor pure. For a stranger will eat from it, that is the master of Talmud. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana got up and kissed him on his head, saying, just as you were worthy to preach this standing, may you be worthy preaching this sitting.

“What is the sole which they mentioned? Anything which looks like the sole, a sea fish. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, anything which looks like an ox tongue. Our teachers voted about this to say, only if it exhibits human traits.” Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil, and a sole. About a sole, as we just said. About oil, as we have stated: “Rebbi and his court permitted oil.” About bills of divorce, as we have stated there: “This is your bill of divorce if I die, this is your bill of divorce if [I die from this] sickness, this is your bill of divorce after my death; he did not say anything.” But our teachers said, this is a bill of divorce. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. Rebbi Yannai shouted, you purified the women giving birth! Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran; as from Rebbi Ze‘ira: If this is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran then it was Rebbi Ḥanina who shouted, you purified the women giving birth!

It can be neither R. Judah's nor R. Jose's. If R. Judah's, he permits it post factum, but not ab initio; if R. Jose's, he does not allow it even post factum.

But perhaps the whole of it is R. Judah's view, there being two kinds of "minor," and [the wording of the Mishnah] is defective and should read thus : "All are fit and proper persons to read the Megillah except a deaf person, a mentally defective person and a minor. Of whom does this speak ? Of a minor who has not yet reached Initiation; but a minor who has reached Initiation is fit to read it even ab initio. These are the words of R. Judah, for R. Judah permits a minor to read."

Our Rabbis have taught : He who wishes to exercise his natural functions, if in Judea he should not face East or West but North or South ; if in Galilee, he should only face East or West. R. Jose, however, permits it [in any direction] because he used to say that the prohibition only applies to one who can see [the Temple], when there is no barrier, and at the time when the Shekinah rests [upon the Sanctuary]. But the Sages prohibit it.

There is another teaching : He who wishes to exercise his natural functions, if in Judea he must not face East or West, but North or South ; but in Galilee, North and South are prohibited, East or West is permitted. R. Jose, however, permits it [in any direction], because he used to say that the prohibition only applies to one who can see [the Temple]. R. Judah says : It is prohibited while the Temple is standing ; but when the Temple is no longer standing it is permitted. R. 'Akiba prohibits it in all circumstances.

Shall we say that R. Ḥisda's view is supported by the following Baraita: "All those bound to take an immersion, immerse as usual even on the Ninth of Ab or on the Day of Atonement"? What kind of immersion is here intended? It cannot be in warm water, for such water is drawn. The Baraita means therefore immersion in cold water and yet it permits it only to those "bound to take an immersion," while all other people are excluded! Said R. Ḥama b. R. Ḳeṭina, the Baraita has reference to the hot springs of Tiberias. If so, how will you understand the following statement that was made with relation to the above Baraita: "R. Ḥanina, the Segan of the priests, said, the house of our God is worth that one should give up for its sake one bath in a year"? If, as you say, the Baraita permits immersion in cold water, they could immerse in cold water (and would not have to give it up even once a year). Said R. Papa, R. Ḥanina refers to a place where there is no cold water (for bathing). Come and hear: "When it was said that bathing on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the whole body, but washing the face, hands, and feet is allowed; when it was said that work on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the day, but during the preceding night it is allowed; and when it was said that wearing shoes is forbidden, it was said only with reference to the city, but on the road it is allowed. How is it done? When one comes on the road, he puts his shoes on, but as soon as he reaches the city, he must take them off. Thou wilt find the same law applied also to an excommunicated person and to a mourner." Now, does not the last statement (that the same law applies also to mourners) cover all three points (bathing, working, and wearing shoes)? No, it refers only to the latter two.

Shall we say that R. Ḥisda's view is supported by the following Baraita: "All those bound to take an immersion, immerse as usual even on the Ninth of Ab or on the Day of Atonement"? What kind of immersion is here intended? It cannot be in warm water, for such water is drawn. The Baraita means therefore immersion in cold water and yet it permits it only to those "bound to take an immersion," while all other people are excluded! Said R. Ḥama b. R. Ḳeṭina, the Baraita has reference to the hot springs of Tiberias. If so, how will you understand the following statement that was made with relation to the above Baraita: "R. Ḥanina, the Segan of the priests, said, the house of our God is worth that one should give up for its sake one bath in a year"? If, as you say, the Baraita permits immersion in cold water, they could immerse in cold water (and would not have to give it up even once a year). Said R. Papa, R. Ḥanina refers to a place where there is no cold water (for bathing). Come and hear: "When it was said that bathing on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the whole body, but washing the face, hands, and feet is allowed; when it was said that work on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the day, but during the preceding night it is allowed; and when it was said that wearing shoes is forbidden, it was said only with reference to the city, but on the road it is allowed. How is it done? When one comes on the road, he puts his shoes on, but as soon as he reaches the city, he must take them off. Thou wilt find the same law applied also to an excommunicated person and to a mourner." Now, does not the last statement (that the same law applies also to mourners) cover all three points (bathing, working, and wearing shoes)? No, it refers only to the latter two.

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

They do not conclude with the portion of the chariot as a haftarah. But Rabbi Judah permits this. Eliezer says: They do not conclude with “Proclaim Jerusalem’s [abominations]” (Ezekiel 16) as a haftarah.

[With regard to a synagogue which has been made] a gift, R. Aha and Ravina disagree, one forbids [it to be used for secular purposes] and one permits. The one who forbade—how is its sanctity removed? While the one who permitted if the giver [the giver] did not derive some benefit from the act he would not give it, so that in the end the gift is equivalent to a sale.