qappara

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaül stated: Everybody bows down with the cantor for the benediction of thanksgiving. Rebbi Zeïra said: But only for the word modim. Rebbi Zeïra was attentive to the Qeroba to bow his head at the beginning and at the end. Rebbi Yose when he came up here saw them bowing down and whispering. He said to them: What is this whispering? He had not heard what Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Simeon said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simai, and some say, the colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simai: We thank You, Master of all creatures, God of praises, eternal Rock, Life of the Universe, Creator, Who resurrects the dead, that You have made us alive, kept us, gave us merit, supported us, and brought us near to give thanks to Your name; praised be You, o Eternal, God of thanksgiving. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: We thank You since we are obliged to give thanks; may my lips sing, for I shall sing to You with my soul that You have redeemed; praised are You, o Eternal, God of thanksgiving. Rebbi Samuel bar Inia in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Thanksgiving and praise to Your name, Yours is greatness, Yours is strength, Yours is glory! May it please You, o Eternal, our God and God of our fathers, that You may support us in our fall, straighten us up from our bent state, because You support the falling and straighten up the bent ones, You are full of mercy and nothing exists except You; praised are You, o Eternal, God of thanksgiving. Bar Qappara said: For You we fall down, for You we bend down, for You we prostrate ourselves, for You we kneel, to You every knee should fall down and every tongue swears. (1Chr. 29:11–13): Yours, o Eternal, is greatness, strength, glory, victory, and majesty, truly all that is in heaven and on earth; Yours, o Eternal, is the kingdom, and You lift Yourself over all as head. Riches and honor are before You, You rule over all; in Your hand is power and strength, it is in Your hand to make great and strengthen everything. And now, our God, we thank You and praise Your glorious name; with all our heart and soul we prostrate ourselves before You. (Ps. 35:10) My entire self shall say: O Eternal, who is like You, Who saves the destitute from one who is stronger than he is, the destitute and poor from the one who robs him. Praised are You, o Eternal, God of thanksgiving. Rebbi Yudan said: the rabbis used to say all of these. But some say, either one or the other.

Bar Qappara said: He who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Levi said, a positive and a negative commandment. (Gen. 17:4) “Your name shall not in the future be called Abram”, that is the negative commandment, “But your name shall be Abraham”, that is the positive commandment. They objected: But the Men of the Great Assembly called him Abram, (Neh. 9:7) “You are, o Eternal, the God Who selected Abram”. There is a difference, while he was still Abram You selected him.

Bar Qappara said: One has to focus his attention only during the first three verses. It was stated thus: (Deut. 6:7) “You should repeat” until there is the obligation of focussed attention; from there starts the obligation of repetition.

When Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada, the nephew of Bar Qappara, died did Resh Laqish accept for him since he was his teacher and a student is beloved as a son. He went and eulogized him: (Song of Songs 6:2) “My friend descended to his garden, to the spice patch, to shepherd in the gardens.” It would have been necessary only to say “ “My friend descended to shepherd in the gardens.” But “my friend” is the Holy One, praise to Him. “He descended to His garden”, that is the world. “To the spice patch”, that is Israel. “To shepherd in the gardens”, these are the peoples of the world. “And to collect lilies”, these are the just ones whom He removes from their midst. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To a king who had a son whom he loved very much. What did the king do? He planted a garden for him. When the son did the will of his father, the father searched in the entire world for a nice plant and planted it in his garden. When the son was making him angry, he cut down all his plants. So when Israel does the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, he searches the entire world and observes the just person, brings him and attaches him to Israel, like Jethro and Rahab. And when they are making him angry he removes the just ones from amongst them.

From where the overturning of beds? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (Job 2:13) “They sat with him towards the ground.” It does not say here “on the ground” but “they sat with him towards the ground,” on something close to the ground. It follows that they were sleeping on overturned couches. Bar Qappara said: A beautiful form I had in your house and you caused me to overturn it, you also overturn your bed! Some quote it by the expression “let him overturn; overturn the agent!” Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. One said, why does he sleep on an overturned coach? So that he should wake up in the night and realize that he is a mourner. The other one said, since he sleeps on an overturned bed he wakes up in the night and realizes that he is a mourner.

Rav Jeremiah said, one should start to pray only from a practical rule. Rav Jeremiah said, he who deals with public needs is like him who studies Torah. Rav Ḥuna said: a woman who saw a spot like a mustard seed sits and watches seven days of purification because of it; then he stood up and prayed. Zeïra bar Ḥinena said: He who draws blood from a dedicated animal committed larceny; that is one of the decided practices. Bar Qappara stated: Eleven days between periods is a practice taught to Moses at Sinai. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: One may add produce on the stalk and be tricky in order to free it from tithes. Abdan asked Rebbi: How many levels are there for dedicated things? He answered him: four. And how many levels for Terumah? He answered: three, then he stood up and prayed.

Rav Yehudah in the name of Abba bar bar Ḥana: Bar Qappara and two of his students were with the innkeeper at the “inn of blessings”. He brought before them partridge, orach, and leeks. They said, if we recite the benediction on leeks, it will serve also for orach but not for the partridge. If we recite on orach, it will not serve for anything else. One of them jumped the gun and recited “by Whose word everything was created” on the partridge. His colleague laughed at him. Bar Qappara said to that one, not about that glutton but about you scoffer. This one acted in his gluttony, why did you laugh? And to the other one he said, is there no rabbi here, is there no old man here? They said, within a year they both died. Rebbi Yose said, there two are gone and we did not learn anything from the incident. What is it? It is reasonable that one recites the benediction on leeks because “By Whose word everything was created” is secondary for vegetables.

Rav Yehudah in the name of Abba bar bar Ḥana: Bar Qappara and two of his students were with the innkeeper at the “inn of blessings”. He brought before them partridge, orach, and leeks. They said, if we recite the benediction on leeks, it will serve also for orach but not for the partridge. If we recite on orach, it will not serve for anything else. One of them jumped the gun and recited “by Whose word everything was created” on the partridge. His colleague laughed at him. Bar Qappara said to that one, not about that glutton but about you scoffer. This one acted in his gluttony, why did you laugh? And to the other one he said, is there no rabbi here, is there no old man here? They said, within a year they both died. Rebbi Yose said, there two are gone and we did not learn anything from the incident. What is it? It is reasonable that one recites the benediction on leeks because “By Whose word everything was created” is secondary for vegetables.

Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Isaac said it in four versions. Flesh and blood has a protector. When they tell him, your client was arrested, he will say: I will protect him. When they tell him, he is going before a court, he will say: I will protect him. When they tell him, he is taken to be hanged, where is he and where is his protector? But the Holy One, praise to Him, saved Moses from the sword of Pharao; that is what is written (Ex. 18:4): “He saved me from the sword of Pharao.” Rebbi Yannai said, it is written (Ex. 2:15): “Moses fled from before Pharao.” Is it possible for flesh and blood to flee from the government? But at the moment when Pharao arrested Moses, he sentenced him to have him beheaded. The sword slipped off the neck of Moses and broke. That is what is written (Songs 7:5): “Your neck is like the ivory tower,” that is Moses’s neck. Rebbi said, Rebbi Eviathar: Not only that, but He moved the sword from the neck of Moses on the neck of the executioner and killed him. That is what is written: “He saved me from the sword of Pharao.” He saved me, but killed the executioner. Rebbi Berekhiah quoted on this (Prov. 21:18) “The evil one is ransom for the just one.” Rebbi Abun quoted on this (Prov. 11:8): “The just will be extricated from distress, the evil one will take his place.” Bar Qappara stated: An angel came down and appeared to them in the shape of Moses. They arrested the angel and Moses fled. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: when Moses fled from before Pharao, all his troops became dumb, deaf, or blind. He asked the dumb, where is Moses? But they could not speak. He asked the deaf, they could not hear. He asked the blind, they could not see. That is what the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses (Ex. 4:11): “Who gave man a mouth, or who makes dumb?” There it upheld you and here you do not want to uphold. That is what is written (Deut. 4:8): “Who is like the Eternal, our ĕlōhīm, always when we call on Him!”

Rav said, if he lets them acquire through her. Samuel says, if he distributes in her presence. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they stated here a relaxation of the laws of ketubah, and so stated bar Qappara that a relaxation of the laws of ketubah is proclaimed here. Rebbi Abba said, the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina is that it applies not only to a ketubah of a mina or two hundred, but even regarding a ketubah of one thousand gold denars they proclaimed a relaxation of the laws of ketubah.

From where that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Poor and rich, justify him” in his gifts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: (Ex. 23:6) “Do not bend the lawsuit of your destitute.” In his lawsuit, you may not bend, but you may bend for him in his gifts. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquires in this case, as Rebbi instructed us (Lev. 19:10, 23:22): “abandon,” put something before him of your own. Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19–21): “It shall be the sojourner’s, the orphan’s, and the widow’s;” give him both from yours and from his!

It was stated: “Five things were said about Greek gourd: One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity and stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, the tiniest amount of it makes forbidden, and to him who makes a vow not to use pumpkins, only Greek gourd is forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not count “it brings impurity and stops impurity” as two? Bar Qappara stated seven: “One may not allow it to cover grains, it brings impurity, it stops impurity, its stalk is one hand-breadth, one gives it its working space, it is kilaim with Aramean [pumpkin], and kilaim with ash pumpkin.” He did not state that it makes forbidden or anything about making a vow.

HALAKHAH: “A vertex, etc.” Bar Qappara stated: He sows in it only one kind.

“But they are forbidden because of the bad impression.” Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room. A baraita contradicts Rav: “One should not make a visible fringe of linen dyed with soot, but for mattresses and pillows it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “If one’s coins were strewn before an idol he should not bow down to collect them lest he look as if he was prostrating himself before the idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “In a fortified place one should not put his face on gargoyles in the form of faces lest he look as if he was kissing an idol. But if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted.” A Mishnah contradicts Rav: “One does not slaughter into a pit in the ground but he may dig a pit in his house so that the blood may be collected there. In public, he should not do it so as not to imitate the sectarians.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “Once he arrived at the outermost courtyard he may spread them out in the sun but not where it is generally visible.” A baraita contradicts Rav: “One does not pour water on the Sabbath into a sewage pipe covered the length of four cubits.” We have stated on this: If water was flowing in it it is permitted, in the winter it is permitted. If aquaeduct pipes spout it is forbidden. Bar Qappara stated that if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. All these statements contradict Rav and he cannot explain them.

The people from Sepphoris said: We shall kill anybody who tells us that Rebbi died. Bar Qappara associated with them, his head covered and his garments torn. He said to them: Earthlings and angels held the Tablets of the Covenant; the angels were stronger and they took away the Tablets. They said to him: Rebbi died. He said to them: You said it. They tore their clothes and the sound of the tearing was heard at Goffta at a distance of three mil.

It is written (Gen. 47:30): “You shall carry me from Egypt and bury me in their burial place.” What would Jacob lose at any place he would be? Rebbi Eleazar gave an inner reason, Rebbi Ḥanina gave an inner reason, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi gave an inner reason. What is the inner reason? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, (Ps. 116:9) “I will walk before the Eternal in the Land of Life.” But the lands of life are only Tyre and its surroundings and Caesarea (maritima) and its surroundings; there is cheap (food), there is satiety. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara, the Land whose dead will live again in the days of the Messiah. What is the reason? (Is. 42:9) “He gives soul to the people on it.” That would mean that our teachers in the diaspora would lose out! Rebbi Simai said, the Holy One, praised be He, makes the earth erode before them and they roll like wine barrels. When they arrive at the Land of Israel their souls return to them. What is the reason? (Ez. 37:12) “I shall deposit you on the territory of Israel,” (v. 14) “give My spirit into you, and you will live.”

Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Mishnah deals with the leaves of false arum. Rav Hoshaiah brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: “The leaves of arum or of onions.” Can you speak of leaves of false onions? The word of Rebbi Jeremiah implies that anything subject to removal found inside something not subject to removal is subject to removal. How does Rebbi Jeremiah deal with this? He explains it if he trampled on the leaves.

Ashqelon itself? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since we have stated “the gardens of Ascalon” it follows that Ascalon is outside. Rebbi Simon in the name of Hilfai: The House of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and Ben Qappara voted on the airspace of Ascalon and declared it pure from the testimony of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr who said, we were descending to the Saracen [market] at Ascalon where we bought wheat, returned to our town, immersed ourselves and ate our heave. The next day they voted to free it from tithes. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose removed his hand that was leaning on Ben Qappara. He said to him, my son, why did you not say to me: why did you remove your hand? I would have told you that yesterday I was he who declared it impure, I am he who declared it pure. But now I am saying, maybe it was conquered within the meaning of the Torah, how can I free it from the meaning of the Torah?

Ashqelon itself? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since we have stated “the gardens of Ascalon” it follows that Ascalon is outside. Rebbi Simon in the name of Hilfai: The House of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and Ben Qappara voted on the airspace of Ascalon and declared it pure from the testimony of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr who said, we were descending to the Saracen [market] at Ascalon where we bought wheat, returned to our town, immersed ourselves and ate our heave. The next day they voted to free it from tithes. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose removed his hand that was leaning on Ben Qappara. He said to him, my son, why did you not say to me: why did you remove your hand? I would have told you that yesterday I was he who declared it impure, I am he who declared it pure. But now I am saying, maybe it was conquered within the meaning of the Torah, how can I free it from the meaning of the Torah?

It was stated: “Green grass and any other vegetables he took to moisturize may be used to moisturize. When he thought about them as human food it is forbidden to use them to moisturize.” Bar Qappara stated: One may use them to moisturize but he may not squeeze out from them because the holiness of the Sabbatical is on them. But there is no Sabbatical holiness on animal feed since you say one may use them to make wound dressing for humans. Rebbi Yose said, we understand that one may use them to make wound dressing for humans, and we understand that one may press them to prepare medication for humans.

Rebbi Ḥanina bar Issi said, Bar Qappara did not state so, but “if it turned out to between one in fifty and one in sixty, this is heave and he does not have to give more.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on.

“Yolk is forbidden because it absorbs.” Bar Qappara stated: Yolk is forbidden and certainly egg white.

HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure.

Rebbi Ḥanania said: Rebbi took early ripe green melons for the government and fixed their Second Tithe in each peduncle. He considered them as if cut. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, they were whole and you say cut? Rebbi Jonah said, that is correct! If two people were partners in a green melon, one having one part and the other two, can he say, take your part and I shall take mine? But for the two together it is sold more dearly; here also together it is sold more dearly. Like this: Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi commanded those Southerners who were disregarding it. Bar Qappara lifted them and before him cut them into little pieces. He said to him, is that worth anything? So far, some things are cut into little pieces and they are no good, other things are cut into little pieces and are good.

The House of Shammai say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10. Bar Qappara stated, both for demay and for certain 11. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom taught what Bar Qappara had stated. The House of Shammai follows Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s.

The House of Shammai say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10. Bar Qappara stated, both for demay and for certain 11. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom taught what Bar Qappara had stated. The House of Shammai follows Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”

There, we have 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. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose he should be free from paying restitution, from the following: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money.

It is difficult for Bar Qappara. Setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah; they are all for a need, itself not for a need? Rebbi Yose said, if (Rebbi Eleazar) would think with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah. Rebbi Eleazar said, setting fire taught about itself. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have about one to make him liable for each single one? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, of these, to make him liable once for all of them. We understand setting fire. A wound? Its main point for a need, itself not for a need? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. One said, slaughter is the main point and a wound derivative; the other one switches.

An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen? He objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the breaking of the neck; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter. But slaughter by an outsider is valid! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving. These are only because of Sabbath rest. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen? He objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the breaking of the neck; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter. But slaughter by an outsider is valid! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving. These are only because of Sabbath rest. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “If an oven was heated with straw or stubbles,” etc. Bar Qappara stated: It is even forbidden to lean against it. Rebbi Shammai leaned against the air space of the oven. Rebbi Mana told him, did not Bar Qapprara state: It is even forbidden to lean against it?

A philosopher asked Bar Qappara; Ablat asked Levi the eunuch: Is it permitted for drinking but forbidden for taking a bath? He told him, if you saw an eunuch embracing your wife, would you not feel badly about it? He said, yes. He asked him, can he squeeze her in any way? He said, that she should not get loose morals. He told him, here also that they should not get loose morals. After he left, his students told him, this one you pushed away with a stick; what do you answer us? He said to (him) [them]: Is there not already written only what is being eaten by everybody, this alone may be made by you.

One does not wear new boots and sandals except if he wore and walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The sons of Bar Qappara’s daughter said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Rebbi Hoshea’s teacher. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rebbi Hoshaia’s store.

One does not wear new boots and sandals except if he wore and walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The sons of Bar Qappara’s daughter said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Rebbi Hoshea’s teacher. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rebbi Hoshaia’s store.

One of bar Qappara’s students went out to cut wood chips. A fig cutter saw that a snake was running after him. He said to him [Rebbi, Rebbi,] a snake is running after you. It left him and ran after the latter. He recited about him, I shall give a man in your stead.

Bar Qappara went to this town; when he entered he injured his finger. He went and heard a child’s voice, reciting if he came alone he shall leave alone. He said, it seems that only this plastering is going to happen to me. And so it was.

HALAKHAH: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath,” etc. What means “comprehensive”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than the principle of the Sabbatical year, since the Sabbath falls on everything but the Sabbatical year falls on agricultural work in the Land only. There we have stated: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbatical year.” What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than tithes, for the Sabbatical year falls on human food and animal feed but tithes apply to human food only. Bar Qappara stated: a comprehensive principle they said about tithes. What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than peah. for tithes apply both to food that is stored and to food which is not stored, but peah applies only to food used as stored staple. Some want to say, what means “comprehensive”? From here that there are derivatives.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

HALAKHAH: 2. Rav said, here there is no “not liable” but “permitted”. In Rav’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is permitted. In Samuel’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is forbidden. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: on condition that the public domain surround it from all sides. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even from one side. From these carts. Were the carts not higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Maisha: only by two persons. Everywhere you are saying, two persons acting together are not liable, but here you are saying, two persons acting together are liable. There is a difference, because this was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting. What was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting? Two carts one parallel to the other in the public domain. They were handing the planks from one to the other but not throwing. Bar Qappara stated, not to treat the planks with contempt.

“And ties the umbilical cord.” As in the following: The slave girl of Bar Qappara expected to give birth on a Sabbath. She came and asked her master, who told her to go and ask the midwife. She said, there is no midwife. He said, go and follow your usage; she said, there is no usage. He said, go and cut it. This is like Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the roof as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they do not compare. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed stakes are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine or squash.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shadow it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav Oshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

Rebbi Aḥa said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Bar Qappara disagree. One said, this you are saying only about a large city. But for a small town the addition should not be more than the core. But the other said, whether large or small, 2’000 is sufficient.

Paragraph. “Similarly three villages forming a triangle,” etc. Samuel said, if they are in a line. Bar Qappara said, it they are like a tripod. Which one is the middle one? It is understandable for him who said, they are in a line. For him who said, they are like a tripod, which one is the middle one? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said, if you are measuring from one, the other is the middle one; if you are measuring from one, the other is the middle one. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, only if the middle one not be farther than 2’000 cubits. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Jocob bar Aḥa, did we not state: “if between the two outer ones are 141⅓ [cubits], the middle one makes all three [to be one].” To permit the two outer ones. If there were two, could the middle one be counted for either side? His problem was if there were two people walking. But if one person is walking, it is counted for either side.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody was in the East,” etc. Because of the difficulty did Bar Qappara ask, the East of his son and the West of his son? One understands “if there are from his place to his house 2’000 cubits but to his eruv more than this, he is permitted up to his house but forbidden to his eruv.” “If to his eruv be 2’000 cubits but to his house more than that, he is permitted up to his eruv but forbidden to his house”?

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob both said the same. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, on the Sabbath one may pour water into a sewer which is covered for four cubits in the public domain, but the Sages are saying, even from a roof or a courtyard 100 cubits [wide] one may not pour into the sewer.” Rebbi Meïr as it was stated: In large cities one may pour water into flows even though they are perforated, the words of Rebbi Meïr. And it was stated thus, if it was a drainpipe it is permitted; in the rainy season it is permitted; streaming spouts are forbidden and Bar Qappara stated, if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. This disagrees with Rav and he cannot explain it, since Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room.

“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.

“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.

“Where did they say two rows in the cellar,” etc. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He peels it like a Gamma. Bar Qappara stated, he peels it like two Gamma. If it was situated in the middle of the room. In the opinion of Rav Huna he strips it of one garment, in the opinion of Bar Qappara he strips it of two garments. If it was built in steps, he strips it by many Gamma. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The outermost row which is the uppermost which sees both door and beam of the roof, [and] the one inside of it. It was stated: the one below it. They wanted to say that he who says, the one inside of it, so much more that one below it. He who says, the one below it, therefore not the one inside of it. If half a row was used, it is obvious that what was used has inside of it and below it. That which was not used has inside of it and below it. That is to say, if they are spaced. But if they are tightly packed he passes the light over them and it is enough. Does this mean that they did worry about things falling down? Rebbi Phineas from Yafo said, I am saying that the servant introduced leavened matter when he placed them.

“Where did they say two rows in the cellar,” etc. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He peels it like a Gamma. Bar Qappara stated, he peels it like two Gamma. If it was situated in the middle of the room. In the opinion of Rav Huna he strips it of one garment, in the opinion of Bar Qappara he strips it of two garments. If it was built in steps, he strips it by many Gamma. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The outermost row which is the uppermost which sees both door and beam of the roof, [and] the one inside of it. It was stated: the one below it. They wanted to say that he who says, the one inside of it, so much more that one below it. He who says, the one below it, therefore not the one inside of it. If half a row was used, it is obvious that what was used has inside of it and below it. That which was not used has inside of it and below it. That is to say, if they are spaced. But if they are tightly packed he passes the light over them and it is enough. Does this mean that they did worry about things falling down? Rebbi Phineas from Yafo said, I am saying that the servant introduced leavened matter when he placed them.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are word of the Torah. In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, original impurity induces first degree derivative. Derivative impurity induces second degree derivative. Second degree impurity which touched first degree one remains in its place, second degree, since third degree which touches first degree becomes second degree.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are word of the Torah. In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, original impurity induces first degree derivative. Derivative impurity induces second degree derivative. Second degree impurity which touched first degree one remains in its place, second degree, since third degree which touches first degree becomes second degree.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

HALAKHAH: 7: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words.” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I said, it is correct. There (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux].”

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words.” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I said, it is correct. There (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux].”

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words.” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I said, it is correct. There (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux].”

HALAKHAH: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One is permitted to feed it [to his dog]. Bar Qappara stated: There is no fissure on top which does not have several fissures below.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “They went, ate, and drank. In the evening they returned and red the Great Hallel.” What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Pamakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to Almighty God. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; Truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. Rebbi Mana said, it is ours. The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “They went, ate, and drank. In the evening they returned and red the Great Hallel.” What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Pamakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to Almighty God. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; Truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. Rebbi Mana said, it is ours. The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “They went, ate, and drank. In the evening they returned and red the Great Hallel.” What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Pamakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to Almighty God. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; Truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. Rebbi Mana said, it is ours. The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar 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 Rebbi 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 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.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar 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 Rebbi 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 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.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

It was stated: one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors, since they increase lewd behavior. Bar Qappara stated, because they bring sancta to disqualification. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Issy: One does not form a group from proselytes. Since they are [faulty they are not] diligent about it and bring it to disqualification.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said, the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and bar Qappara disagreed. One said, that he could come and eat; the other one said that he could come and pour. And even following him who said, that he could come and eat; on condition that he be within the two thousand cubits of the [Sabbath] domain before nightfall. Rebbi Zeˋira said, there they stated, if he happened to be closer than Modiˋin but his feet were bad, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained, this excludes one who did not refrain. If he happened to be farther than Modiˋin but had a horse at his disposal, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, and he was not on a trip, this excludes this one who was on a trip. If he happened to be closer than Modiˋin before noontime but left before noontime, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained from doing, he who refrains at the time of doing is liable, not at the time of doing is not liable.

Bar Qappara stated: Silence behoves the Sages, and so much more the fools. And also Solomon says, also a silent dolt is considered to be wise, and it is not necessary to say, a silent sage.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One has to dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One need not dip Romaine lettuce twice. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he did not dip the first time, he has to dip the second time. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; “On all other nights we dip once, this night twice.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of one opinion with Bar Qappara; the Mishnah disagrees with Bar Qappara: On all other nights we dip with bread, but here we dip it by itself. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, one fulfills his obligation with mazzah, whether he intended it or did not intend. But here since he was lying on a couch, the presumption is that he intended. Rebbi Jeremiah objected before Rebbi Zeˋira, does not the Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “one brings before him mazzah, and Romaine lettuce, and haroset, … even though haroset is not an obligation.” Romaine lettuce is an obligation. He said to him, since Rav dips with beets.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Bar Qappara understood it from the following. As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command, this is burning of the Cow. It is said here, did the Eternal command, and it is said there, this is the low of the Torah which the Eternal commanded, saying.” To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? As Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement valid only through the High Priest, the other also is atonement through the High Priest.

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them. The dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, the perfumers in Jerusalem were saying, if one would add some honey, the entire world could not withstand its smell.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara stated, “they acted criminally, offended, sinned,” in order not to mention the shame of Israel.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Meïr said, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he heard Hallel in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink to feel differently, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, he will not become drunk. May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color, when put in our cup. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the roof as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they are not comparable. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed poles are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing it is disqualified.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shade it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

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

Bar Qappara said, they are eleven cubits high. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “their heads bent on the altar.” Rebbi Ze`ira sent asking Rebbi Daniel ben Rav Qatina, did you hear from your father that it needs a benediction, is taken alone, and has a minimum? Rebbi Ayvi bar Nagari came in the name of Rav Huna and said with reason that it needs a benediction and is taken alone. Whether it has a minimum I did not hear. There, they are saying Rav Sheshet and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob. One says, three leafed branches. But the other said, even one branch.

Rebbi Berekhia, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Levi bar Sisi explained in Nahardea: They saw the God of Israel and below His feet like the work of a brick of sapphire, and like the true sky in purity. That is, before they were freed. But after they were freed, (it was not its way to be put) [where usually the brick is put] there it is put. Rebbi Berekhia said, it is not written here the work, but like the work, it and all its tools, (it and the basket and the rake.) [it and all its merchandise. Rebbi Miasha said, in Babylonia it is written, like the looks of sapphire stone, but in Egypt it is written, like the work of] a brick of sapphire. To teach you that just as the stone is harder than the brick, so the servitude of Babylonia was harder than the servitude of Egypt. Bar Qappara stated, before Israel was rescued from Egypt it was traced in the sky; after they were rescued it was no longer seen in the sky. What is the reason? and like the true sky in purity, the sky if it is empty of clouds.

“Golden candelabra were there.” Bar Qappara said, their height was 100 cubits. But did we not state, anything reaching 100 cubits needs a basis of 33? A ladder on one side and 33, and a ladder on the other side and 33; but was it not stated, the entire courtyard was only 187 long by 135 wide? It was found stated: Their place was by a wonder.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, even the most error-prone person would not err in this matter, before the sun, after the sun? It only is needed for its concavity; the concavity towards the sun, or the concavity away from the sun? Bar Qappara stated both: Before the sun or behind the sun, the concavity towards the sun or the concavity away from the sun? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is written: Rule and fear are with Him, Who makes peace in His heights. During the existence of the sun it never saw the defect of the moon.

Hot water heated on a holiday and similarly hot water heated on Friday for the Sabbath, Rav and Samuel, one said, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, while the other said, one uses it to wash his body limb by limb. We did not know who said what but since Samuel stated, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, it follows that it was [Rav] who said, one uses it to wash his entire body limb by limb. A philosopher asked Bar Qappara; Ablat asked Levi the eunuch: Is it permitted for drinking but forbidden for taking a bath? He told him, if you saw an eunuch embracing your wife, would you not feel badly about it? He said, yes. He asked him, can he squeeze her in any way? He said, that she should not get loose morals. He told him, here also that they should not get loose morals. After he left, his students told him, this one you pushed away with a stick; what do you answer us? He said to them: Is there not already written only what is being eaten by everybody, this alone may be made by you.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Parnakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to the supreme Power; truly, His kindness is forever. Give thanks to the Master of masters; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. [Rebbi Mana said, it is ours.] The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying

What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Parnakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to the supreme Power; truly, His kindness is forever. Give thanks to the Master of masters; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. [Rebbi Mana said, it is ours.] The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying

What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Parnakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to the supreme Power; truly, His kindness is forever. Give thanks to the Master of masters; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. [Rebbi Mana said, it is ours.] The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying

Rav, and Rebbi Ḥanina, and Rebbi Jonathan, and Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this scroll had be said to Moses on Sinai; only there is no earlier and later in the Torah. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Prophets and Hagiographs will in the future be nullified, but the five books of the Torah will never be nullified. What is the reason? A strong voice, never ending. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, also the Esther scroll and practices will never be nullified. It is said here, a strong voice, never ending, and it is said there, their remembrance will not end from their descendants. Practices? His practices are eternal.

HALAKHAH: It is written all Earth was one tongue and unified words. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, they were speaking seventy languages. But the other said, they were speaking in the language of the Unique of the World, the holy language. Bar Qappara stated, may God embellish Japhet and dwell in the tents of Shem, that one should speak Japhet’s language in Shem’s tents. The sons of Japhet: Gomer and Magog, and Yawan, and Tubal, and Meshekh, and Tiras. Gomer, Germamia. Magog, Gothica. Madai, as it is understood. Yawan, Ephesus. Tuval, Bythinia. Meshekh, Moesia. Tiras, Rebbi Simon said Persia, but the rabbis said Thrace. The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphat, and Togarma. Asia, and Adiabene, and Germanicia. The sons of Yawan: Elisha, and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. Elis, Tarsos, Euboea, and Dardania. The Arwadite, Rhodos. The Ṣamarite, Ḥoms. The Ḥamatite, Ḥama. Up to Lasha`. Rebbi Eleazar said, to Kallirrhoe. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, from here about the Targum.