push

But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the LORD, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them.

And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah had made him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith the LORD, With these thou shalt push Syria until they be consumed.

Upon my right hand rise the youth; they push away my feet, and they raise up against me the ways of their destruction.

Through thee will we push down our enemies: through thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us.

And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

Observe, you who are our beloved sons, how merciful yet righteous the Lord our God is; how gracious and kind to men; and yet most certainly He will not acquit the guilty: though He welcomes the returning sinner, and revives him, leaving no room for suspicion to such as wish to judge sternly and to reject offenders entirely, and to refuse to vouchsafe to them exhortations which might bring them to repentance. In contradiction to such, God by Isaiah says to the bishops: Comfort, comfort my people, you priests: speak comfortably to Jerusalem. It therefore behooves you, upon hearing those words of His, to encourage those who have offended, and lead them to repentance, and afford them hope, and not vainly to suppose that you shall be partakers of their offenses on account of such your love to them. Receive the penitent with alacrity, and rejoice over them, and with mercy and bowels of compassion judge the sinners. For if a person was walking by the side of a river, and ready to stumble, and you should push him and thrust him into the river, instead of offering him your hand for his assistance, you would be guilty of the murder of your brother; whereas you ought rather to lend your helping hand as he was ready to fall, lest he perish without remedy, that both the people may take warning, and the offender may not utterly perish. It is your duty, O bishop, neither to overlook the sins of the people, nor to reject those who are penitent, that you may not unskilfully destroy the Lord's flock, or dishonour His new name, which is imposed on His people, and you yourself beest reproached as those ancient pastors were, of whom God speaks thus to Jeremiah: Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard; they have polluted my heritage. And in another passage: My anger is growing hot against the shepherds, and against the lambs shall I have indignation. And elsewhere: You are the priests that dishonour my name.

Nay, that very declaration, that from the same lump a vessel is formed both to honour and to dishonour, will not push us hard; for we assert that the nature of all rational souls is the same, as one lump of clay is described as being under the treatment of the potter. Seeing, then, the nature of rational creatures is one, God, according to the previous grounds of merit, created and formed out of it, as the potter out of the one lump, some persons to honour and others to dishonour. Now, as regards the language of the apostle, which he utters as if in a tone of censure, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” he means, I think, to point out that such a censure does not refer to any believer who lives rightly and justly, and who has confidence in God, i.e. to such an one as Moses was, of whom Scripture says that “Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice;” and as God answered Moses, so also does every saint answer God. But he who is an unbeliever, and loses confidence in answering before God owing to the unworthiness of his life and conversation, and who, in relation to these matters, does not seek to learn and make progress, but to oppose and resist, and who, to speak more plainly, is such an one as to be able to say those words which the apostle indicates, when he says, “Why, then, does He yet find fault? for who will resist His will?”—to such an one may the censure of the apostle rightly be directed, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” This censure accordingly applies not to believers and saints, but to unbelievers and wicked men. Now, to those who introduce souls of different natures, and who turn this declaration of the apostle to the support of their own opinion, we have to reply as follows: If even they are agreed as to what the apostle says, that out of the one lump are formed both those who are made to honour and those who are made to dishonour, whom they term of a nature that is to be saved and destroyed, there will then be no longer souls of different natures, but one nature for all. And if they admit that one and the same potter may undoubtedly denote one Creator, there will not be different creators either of those who are saved, or of those who perish. Now, truly, let them choose whether they will have a good Creator to be intended who creates bad and ruined men, or one who is not good, who creates good men and those who are prepared to honour. For the necessity of returning an answer will extort from them one of these two alternatives. But according to our declaration, whereby we say that it is owing to preceding causes that God makes vessels either to honour or to dishonour, the approval of God’s justice is in no respect limited. For it is possible that this vessel, which owing to previous causes was made in this world to honour, may, if it behave negligently, be converted in another world, according to the deserts of its conduct, into a vessel unto dishonour: as again, if any one, owing to preceding causes, was formed by his Creator in this life a vessel unto dishonour, and shall mend his ways and cleanse himself from all filth and vice, he may, in the new world, be made a vessel to honour, sanctified and useful, and prepared unto every good work. Finally, those who were formed by God in this world to be Israelites, and who have lived a life unworthy of the nobility of their race, and have fallen away from the grandeur of their descent, will, in the world to come, in a certain degree be converted, on account of their unbelief, from vessels of honour into vessels of dishonour; while, on the other hand, many who in this life were reckoned among Egyptian or Idumean vessels, having adopted the faith and practice of Israelites, when they shall have done the works of Israelites, and shall have entered the church of the Lord, will exist as vessels of honour in the revelation of the sons of God. From which it is more agreeable to the rule of piety to believe that every rational being, according to his purpose and manner of life, is converted, sometimes from bad to good, and falls away sometimes from good to bad: that some abide in good, and others advance to a better condition, and always ascend to higher things, until they reach the highest grade of all; while others, again, remain in evil, or, if the wickedness within them begin to spread itself further, they descend to a worse condition, and sink into the lowest depth of wickedness. Whence also we must suppose that it is possible there may be some who began at first indeed with small offences, but who have poured out wickedness to such a degree, and attained such proficiency in evil, that in the measure of their wickedness they are equal even to the opposing powers: and again, if, by means of many severe administrations of punishment, they are able at some future time to recover their senses, and gradually attempt to find healing for their wounds, they may, on ceasing from their wickedness, be restored to a state of goodness. Whence we are of opinion that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said, is immortal and eternal, it is possible that, in the many and endless periods of duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it may descend from the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from the lowest evil to the highest good.

Bundles of straw, bundles of twigs, or bundles of young shoots, if they were prepared as animal food, they may be carried; if not, they may not be carried. One may overturn a basket before young birds, so that they will get up and then get down. A chicken which has run away, they may push her until she re-enters. One may make calves and foals walk in the public domain. And a woman may make her son walk. Rabbi Judah says: when is this so? If he lifts one [foot] and places [another] down; but if he drags them it is forbidden.

Five [agents of damage] rank as harmless and five as an attested danger. Cattle are not an attested danger to butt, push, bite, lie down, or kick. The tooth [of an animal] is an attested danger to eat that which is for it; The leg [of an animal] is an attested danger to break [things] as it walks along; So also is a warned ox [an ox that has gored before]; And an ox that damages in the domain of the damaged party, and human beings. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther and the snake all rank as attested danger. Rabbi Eliezer says: When they are tame they are not attested danger, but the snake is always an attested danger. What is the difference between that which is harmless and that which is an attested danger? The harmless pays half-damages from its own body and the attested danger pays full damages from the best property (of its owner and guardian).

If a man left sons and daughters and one that was of doubtful gender, if the property was great the males may push him (the one of doubtful gender) onto the females; if the property was small the females may thrust him onto the males. If a man said, “If my wife shall bear a male he shall be given 100 zuz”, and she had a male, he receives 100 zuz. [If he said, “If my wife shall bear a] female she shall be given 200 zuz”, and she had a female, she receives 200 zuz. [If he said, “If may wife shall bear a] male he shall be given 100 zuz and if a female 200 zuz” and she had a male and a female, the male receives 100 zuz and the female 200 zuz. If she had one of doubtful gender, he does not take. But if he said, “Whatsoever my wife shall bear shall be given [such an amount], he receives. If he [the one of doubtful gender] was the only heir, he inherits everything.

Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.

Vessels made of cattle dung or of earth through which the roots can penetrate, do not render the seeds susceptible. A perforated plant-pot does not render seeds susceptible; but if it has no hole, the seeds do become susceptible. What should be the hole's dimension? Such that a small root can push its way through. If it was filled with earth to its brim, it is deemed as a frame without an edge.

Rebbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, we do not interrupt even for the recitation of Shema‘.” Rebbi Yoḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, we do interrupt even for prayer.” This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Yoḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Yoḥanan says: “if only a man would pray the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain!” Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said: “If I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that he should create two mouths for man; one for him to exert himself in Torah and the other one for his other needs.” But he changed his mind and said: “With one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of its denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be? Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Yoḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabiah, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shema‘ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Aqabiah said: just as they interrupt for Shema‘, so they interrupt for prayer, tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah”. Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies in order to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Yoḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the afterbirth he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and he does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not formulate: “He is like a man reading in the Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. One is like the other. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was permanently studying Torah, did not prefer Shema‘ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not formulate: “He who reads (Shema‘) after that did not lose, he is only like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said: He who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

When Rebbi Judah the Prince died, Rebbi Yannai proclaimed and said: “There is no priesthood today.” When Rebbi Judah the Prince, grandson of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did push Rebbi Zeïra in the Gufna synagogue of Sepphoris and defiled him. When Nahoraï, the sister of Rebbi Judah the prince, died, Rebbi Ḥanina sent for Rebbi Mana but the latter did not come. He said to him, if one does not defile himself for them during their lifetime, so much less in their death. Rebbi Nassa said, in their death they made them like a corpse of obligation.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were shown to Moses on Sinai and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abin said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known?

So far a creditor who pushes for payment. Also for a creditor who does not push for payment? Let us hear from the following: “If they were mortgaged for his wife’s ketubah or for a creditor.” Is the wife not like a creditor who does not push for payment? “One does not require him to sell.”

So far a creditor who pushes for payment. Also for a creditor who does not push for payment? Let us hear from the following: “If they were mortgaged for his wife’s ketubah or for a creditor.” Is the wife not like a creditor who does not push for payment? “One does not require him to sell.”

It was stated: Ben Azai says, two. Rebbi Zeïra said, in a dream I had Ulla bar Ismael ate fat meat. The next day he came and asked him, he said to him, why two? He said to him, since you tell him so, he will push himself to exchange it.

“And are lifted by one and 100”. How do you treat it, as beginning of separation or end of separation? If you say as beginning of separation, no minor may lift, no unrelated person may lift, and it does not push away the Sabbath. If you treat it as end of separation, a minor may lift, an unrelated person may lift, and it does push away the Sabbath. There we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also one may lift dema‘ by one in a hundred.” On that, it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he wishes he earmarks part of it and eats the remainder.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Judah treated it as end of separation and Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as beginning of separation. Rebbi Yose said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as end of separation. Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that it is forbidden to do so with certain [produce]? How is that? He should never do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.

“And are lifted by one and 100”. How do you treat it, as beginning of separation or end of separation? If you say as beginning of separation, no minor may lift, no unrelated person may lift, and it does not push away the Sabbath. If you treat it as end of separation, a minor may lift, an unrelated person may lift, and it does push away the Sabbath. There we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also one may lift dema‘ by one in a hundred.” On that, it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he wishes he earmarks part of it and eats the remainder.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Judah treated it as end of separation and Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as beginning of separation. Rebbi Yose said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as end of separation. Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that it is forbidden to do so with certain [produce]? How is that? He should never do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, a baraita implies that one does not heal through spilling blood, as we have stated there: “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life.” Not only if one would say, kill this person, but even if he told him, injure that person. It was stated, a Gentile against a Jew, is prohibited; a Jew against a Gentile is permitted. Rav Ḥisda asked, may one save the life of an adult with the life of a minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state, “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, there it is different for it is not known who is endangering whom.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, a baraita implies that one does not heal through spilling blood, as we have stated there: “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life.” Not only if one would say, kill this person, but even if he told him, injure that person. It was stated, a Gentile against a Jew, is prohibited; a Jew against a Gentile is permitted. Rav Ḥisda asked, may one save the life of an adult with the life of a minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state, “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, there it is different for it is not known who is endangering whom.

MISHNAH: One moves bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of shoots if they were prepared as animal feed; otherwise one does not move them. One turns over a basket before the chicks that they may climb up and down. A chicken which escaped one may push until it re-enters. One helps calves and fillies to walk in the public domain and a woman may help her son to walk. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he lifts one foot and puts the other one down but if he draws them it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement before the Sabbath he brings it openly on the Sabbath and in times of danger he brings it covered by the testimony of witnesses. In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, one cuts down trees to make charcoal to make iron; Rebbi Aqiba stated a principle: Any work which he might have done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside; circumcision which is impossible to perform on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could make on (Friday) which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter not yet had pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could make on (Friday) which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter not yet had pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

“The drawn should not circumcise lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised convert. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised; because that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Since we have stated that it is a compressed prepuce, it is implied that he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A son was born to Rav Ada bar Ahava in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, testicles became injured and he fasted for him; he died. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him; he died.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

Rebbi Yose said, so is the Mishnah: Only by pairs. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even by pairs. They wanted to say, in the rabbi’s opinion it is not clear; in Rabban Aḥa’s opinion it is clear. Could he not bring them in his hand? It is better to bring them as garment not as load. It is better to push the Sabbath away once not twice.

“One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside.” There we have stated: “cutting his wart does not push aside;” and here you are saying so? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi (Pedat) [Pedaya]: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi [Yose] said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Levi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben (Yaqim) [Laqish] parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: All who destroy are not liable, except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

MISHNAH: The following items about the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath: Its slaughter, and the pouring of its blood, and emptying its intestines, and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and washing of its intestines do not push aside. Carrying it, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain, or cutting its wart, do not push aside; Rebbi Eliezer says, they push aside.

MISHNAH: The following items about the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath: Its slaughter, and the pouring of its blood, and emptying its intestines, and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and washing of its intestines do not push aside. Carrying it, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain, or cutting its wart, do not push aside; Rebbi Eliezer says, they push aside.

MISHNAH: The following items about the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath: Its slaughter, and the pouring of its blood, and emptying its intestines, and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and washing of its intestines do not push aside. Carrying it, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain, or cutting its wart, do not push aside; Rebbi Eliezer says, they push aside.

MISHNAH: The following items about the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath: Its slaughter, and the pouring of its blood, and emptying its intestines, and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and washing of its intestines do not push aside. Carrying it, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain, or cutting its wart, do not push aside; Rebbi Eliezer says, they push aside.

HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time, and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself.

HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time, and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside, so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

“But its roasting, and washing of its intestines, do not push aside.” We have stated, “When it got dark, they left and roasted their Pesaḥ”, and you are saying so? For hanging into the oven.

“Cutting its wart.” There, we have stated: “One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside; using an implement is forbidden here and there.” Here, you are saying, it pushes aside; there, you are saying, it does not push aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer said, if slaughter which is work pushes the Sabbath aside, should not these, which are because of Sabbath rest, push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Joshua said to him, holiday is a counter example, where He permitted the work but forbade because of Sabbath rest. Rebbi Eliezer answered whim, what is this, Joshua? What proof is option for obligation?

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath. So you should not wonder about these, even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time, whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

Is there anybody who says to his teacher, it is the other way around? Since Rebbi Eliezer was teaching him practice currently that the festival offering does not push aside the Sabbath and he objected to him at the time of argument, therefore he told him, it is the other way around.

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday and pushes the Sabbath aside, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday, should they push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could do after the Sabbath and which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter which push aside the Sabbath when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday and pushes the Sabbath aside, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday, should they push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could do after the Sabbath and which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter which push aside the Sabbath when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday and pushes the Sabbath aside, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday, should they push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could do after the Sabbath and which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter which push aside the Sabbath when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday and pushes the Sabbath aside, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday, should they push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could do after the Sabbath and which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter which push aside the Sabbath when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Meïr are, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these “children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah taught us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Yannai said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount, even if there is no (one) [other] baby to circumcise. If you are treating it like something which is not a fixed amount, only if there remains (one) [another] baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Ḥuna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahawah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Meïr are, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these “children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah taught us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Yannai said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount, even if there is no (one) [other] baby to circumcise. If you are treating it like something which is not a fixed amount, only if there remains (one) [another] baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Ḥuna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahawah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time, from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel, this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for.

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.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

Rebbi Eleazar said, limbs and fat which were not consumed before the evening one builds into a pyre and burns them separately; for them one pushes aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba: The Mishnah implies this: “Every day there were four arrangements.” What does one understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, “and this day five”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: May something which is not obstructive push aside? He answered him, there are the witnesses for the New Moon who are not obstructive and push aside, as we have stated there: “for a distance of a night and day one desecrates the Sabbath and comes for testimony of the New Moon.”

Rebbi Eleazar said, limbs and fat which were not consumed before the evening one builds into a pyre and burns them separately; for them one pushes aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba: The Mishnah implies this: “Every day there were four arrangements.” What does one understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, “and this day five”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: May something which is not obstructive push aside? He answered him, there are the witnesses for the New Moon who are not obstructive and push aside, as we have stated there: “for a distance of a night and day one desecrates the Sabbath and comes for testimony of the New Moon.”

The argument of Rabban Gamliel is inverted. As it was stated, Tabi, Rabban Gamliel’s slave, put on tefillin and the Sages did not object to him. And here they objected? In order not to push aside the Sages. If in order not to push aside the Sages, he could sit outside the sukkah. Tabi, Rabban Gamliel’s slave, wanted to hear the words of the Sages.

The argument of Rabban Gamliel is inverted. As it was stated, Tabi, Rabban Gamliel’s slave, put on tefillin and the Sages did not object to him. And here they objected? In order not to push aside the Sages. If in order not to push aside the Sages, he could sit outside the sukkah. Tabi, Rabban Gamliel’s slave, wanted to hear the words of the Sages.

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Since you are saying there, and you shall offer a gift to the Eternal seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath, why not similarly and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath? He answered them, there is a difference, for it is written You shall take for yourselves on the First Day, He separated the first from them. Then it should push aside in the Temple, it should not push aside in the country. Rebbi Jonah said, if it had said, “you shall take before the Eternal, your God,” I would have said, here he excluded and at another place included. But you shall take for yourselves everywhere, and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, in Jerusalem.

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Since you are saying there, and you shall offer a gift to the Eternal seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath, why not similarly and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath? He answered them, there is a difference, for it is written You shall take for yourselves on the First Day, He separated the first from them. Then it should push aside in the Temple, it should not push aside in the country. Rebbi Jonah said, if it had said, “you shall take before the Eternal, your God,” I would have said, here he excluded and at another place included. But you shall take for yourselves everywhere, and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, in Jerusalem.

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 Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion about this. “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting, [the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says], since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he started the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion about this. “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting, [the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says], since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he started the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday of the New Year,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Pappos said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were sitting and questioning. They said, we have stated: “if the holiday of the New Year falls on a Sabbath, at the Temple they were blowing but not in the countryside.” If it is a word of the Torah, in the countryside it also should push aside; if it is not a word of the Torah also in the Temple it should not push aside. Cahana passed by. They said, this is a [an important] man whom we may ask. They went and asked him. He said to them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Rebbi Ze`ira told the colleagues to go and listen to Rebbi Levi preaching since it would be impossible that he would let a weekly reading go by without enlightenment. He came and said before them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Then also in the Temple it should not push aside. It was stated, on the first of the month. Then also anywhere they know that it is the first of the month it should push aside. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, and you shall sacrifice, at the place where the sacrifices are offered. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah. Is it not written, you shall convey a sounding shofar in the seventh month, etc? He said to them, this one you convey in all your Land, therefore not another one. They said to him, or we might say, this one you convey in your Land, therefore another one both in your Land and outside the Land. Rebbi Jonah said, if it were written “convey a shofar in your Land”, I would have said that here he restricted and at another place he extended. But in all your Land, here he extended and at another place he restricted.

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday of the New Year,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Pappos said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were sitting and questioning. They said, we have stated: “if the holiday of the New Year falls on a Sabbath, at the Temple they were blowing but not in the countryside.” If it is a word of the Torah, in the countryside it also should push aside; if it is not a word of the Torah also in the Temple it should not push aside. Cahana passed by. They said, this is a [an important] man whom we may ask. They went and asked him. He said to them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Rebbi Ze`ira told the colleagues to go and listen to Rebbi Levi preaching since it would be impossible that he would let a weekly reading go by without enlightenment. He came and said before them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Then also in the Temple it should not push aside. It was stated, on the first of the month. Then also anywhere they know that it is the first of the month it should push aside. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, and you shall sacrifice, at the place where the sacrifices are offered. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah. Is it not written, you shall convey a sounding shofar in the seventh month, etc? He said to them, this one you convey in all your Land, therefore not another one. They said to him, or we might say, this one you convey in your Land, therefore another one both in your Land and outside the Land. Rebbi Jonah said, if it were written “convey a shofar in your Land”, I would have said that here he restricted and at another place he extended. But in all your Land, here he extended and at another place he restricted.

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday of the New Year,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Pappos said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were sitting and questioning. They said, we have stated: “if the holiday of the New Year falls on a Sabbath, at the Temple they were blowing but not in the countryside.” If it is a word of the Torah, in the countryside it also should push aside; if it is not a word of the Torah also in the Temple it should not push aside. Cahana passed by. They said, this is a [an important] man whom we may ask. They went and asked him. He said to them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Rebbi Ze`ira told the colleagues to go and listen to Rebbi Levi preaching since it would be impossible that he would let a weekly reading go by without enlightenment. He came and said before them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Then also in the Temple it should not push aside. It was stated, on the first of the month. Then also anywhere they know that it is the first of the month it should push aside. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, and you shall sacrifice, at the place where the sacrifices are offered. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah. Is it not written, you shall convey a sounding shofar in the seventh month, etc? He said to them, this one you convey in all your Land, therefore not another one. They said to him, or we might say, this one you convey in your Land, therefore another one both in your Land and outside the Land. Rebbi Jonah said, if it were written “convey a shofar in your Land”, I would have said that here he restricted and at another place he extended. But in all your Land, here he extended and at another place he restricted.

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday of the New Year,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Pappos said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were sitting and questioning. They said, we have stated: “if the holiday of the New Year falls on a Sabbath, at the Temple they were blowing but not in the countryside.” If it is a word of the Torah, in the countryside it also should push aside; if it is not a word of the Torah also in the Temple it should not push aside. Cahana passed by. They said, this is a [an important] man whom we may ask. They went and asked him. He said to them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Rebbi Ze`ira told the colleagues to go and listen to Rebbi Levi preaching since it would be impossible that he would let a weekly reading go by without enlightenment. He came and said before them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Then also in the Temple it should not push aside. It was stated, on the first of the month. Then also anywhere they know that it is the first of the month it should push aside. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, and you shall sacrifice, at the place where the sacrifices are offered. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah. Is it not written, you shall convey a sounding shofar in the seventh month, etc? He said to them, this one you convey in all your Land, therefore not another one. They said to him, or we might say, this one you convey in your Land, therefore another one both in your Land and outside the Land. Rebbi Jonah said, if it were written “convey a shofar in your Land”, I would have said that here he restricted and at another place he extended. But in all your Land, here he extended and at another place he restricted.

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Since you are saying there, and you shall offer a gift to the Eternal seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath, why not similarly and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath? He answered them, there is a difference, for it is written You shall take for yourselves on the First Day, He separated the first from them. Then it should push aside in the Temple, it should not push aside in the country. Rebbi Jonah said, if it had said, “you shall take before the Eternal, your God,” I would have said, here he excluded and elsewhere included. But you shall take for yourselves everywhere, and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, in Jerusalem.

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Since you are saying there, and you shall offer a gift to the Eternal seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath, why not similarly and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, there are no seven without a Sabbath? He answered them, there is a difference, for it is written You shall take for yourselves on the First Day, He separated the first from them. Then it should push aside in the Temple, it should not push aside in the country. Rebbi Jonah said, if it had said, “you shall take before the Eternal, your God,” I would have said, here he excluded and elsewhere included. But you shall take for yourselves everywhere, and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days, in Jerusalem.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

If he was sacrificing the flour offering of the omer and it became impure in his hand, he says it and one brings him another one; otherwise one tells him, be intelligent and shut up, be intelligent and shut up, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, always one tells him, be intelligent and shut up, since no omer which was not cut for its purpose is qualified. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simon is of the opinion that the omer cannot come from storage. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simon parallels the system of Rebbi Aqiba, his father’s teacher, as we have stated there: “Any work which is possible to be performed on Friday does not push the Sabbath away; but any which is impossible to be performed on Friday pushes the Sabbath away.” But did we not state, “It happened that more than 40 couples passed by and Rebbi Aqiba held them back in Lydda.” Because they are 40 couples. But if it had been a single couple he would not have held them back.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion because of this: “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting. Rebbi Yose said, since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he did not start the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion because of this: “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting. Rebbi Yose said, since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he did not start the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.