qualified

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. Rav Hoshaia asked, what if the one hand-breadth one is put in the middle? He came back and asked, if one of the four hand-breadths ones was put in the middle, how is it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Such a case came before Rebbi Yasa and he qualified it. And it was stated thus: “If a courtyard is enclosed by pillars, the pillars are like walls.” Does not a baraita disagree? If they are made according to the rules they are qualified, not according to the rules disqualified. They wanted to say, in the middle. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if these are not opposite those. Rav said, that one of one hand-breadth must be removed from the wall by one hand-breadth. Samuel said, even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one follows this one, the other one the other. Cahana and Assi came and asked before Rav following that of Samuel. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if it is within three hand-breadths like a lathe.

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. Rav Hoshaia asked, what if the one hand-breadth one is put in the middle? He came back and asked, if one of the four hand-breadths ones was put in the middle, how is it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Such a case came before Rebbi Yasa and he qualified it. And it was stated thus: “If a courtyard is enclosed by pillars, the pillars are like walls.” Does not a baraita disagree? If they are made according to the rules they are qualified, not according to the rules disqualified. They wanted to say, in the middle. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if these are not opposite those. Rav said, that one of one hand-breadth must be removed from the wall by one hand-breadth. Samuel said, even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one follows this one, the other one the other. Cahana and Assi came and asked before Rav following that of Samuel. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if it is within three hand-breadths like a lathe.

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. Rav Hoshaia asked, what if the one hand-breadth one is put in the middle? He came back and asked, if one of the four hand-breadths ones was put in the middle, how is it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Such a case came before Rebbi Yasa and he qualified it. And it was stated thus: “If a courtyard is enclosed by pillars, the pillars are like walls.” Does not a baraita disagree? If they are made according to the rules they are qualified, not according to the rules disqualified. They wanted to say, in the middle. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if these are not opposite those. Rav said, that one of one hand-breadth must be removed from the wall by one hand-breadth. Samuel said, even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one follows this one, the other one the other. Cahana and Assi came and asked before Rav following that of Samuel. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if it is within three hand-breadths like a lathe.

“Or where the sunshine is larger than the shade is disqualified;” therefore half and half is qualified. “A wilted sukkah whose shade is more than its sunshine is qualified.” Here you are saying it is qualified, there you are saying it is disqualified. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is different for a tree which usually is spreading.

“Or where the sunshine is larger than the shade is disqualified;” therefore half and half is qualified. “A wilted sukkah whose shade is more than its sunshine is qualified.” Here you are saying it is qualified, there you are saying it is disqualified. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is different for a tree which usually is spreading.

“Or where the sunshine is larger than the shade is disqualified;” therefore half and half is qualified. “A wilted sukkah whose shade is more than its sunshine is qualified.” Here you are saying it is qualified, there you are saying it is disqualified. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: It is different for a tree which usually is spreading.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it. What is an old sukkah? Any which he made thirty days before the holiday. But if he made it for the holiday it is qualified even from the beginning of the year.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it.” It was stated: One has to renew something in it. The colleagues say, one hand-breadth; Rebbi Yose says, anything. He who says anything, but along the entire length. Is it the same with an old mazzah? Is an old mazzah a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he was not careful about it. A sukkah of shepherds, a sukkah of potters is qualified. A sukkah of Samaritans, if it is made according to the rules is qualified, not according to the rules is disqualified.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai disqualify an old sukkah, but the House of Hillel qualify it.” It was stated: One has to renew something in it. The colleagues say, one hand-breadth; Rebbi Yose says, anything. He who says anything, but along the entire length. Is it the same with an old mazzah? Is an old mazzah a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he was not careful about it. A sukkah of shepherds, a sukkah of potters is qualified. A sukkah of Samaritans, if it is made according to the rules is qualified, not according to the rules is disqualified.

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah under a tree it is as if he made it in the house. One sukkah on top of the other, the upper one is qualified and the lower one disqualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah under a tree it is as if he made it in the house. One sukkah on top of the other, the upper one is qualified and the lower one disqualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.” What? Really dwellers or even appropriate for dwellers? Since an old man stated before Rebbi Ze`ira, “even the lower one is qualified,” there is nobody who says “even” if he does not agree with the preceding. This implies really dwellers.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.” What? Really dwellers or even appropriate for dwellers? Since an old man stated before Rebbi Ze`ira, “even the lower one is qualified,” there is nobody who says “even” if he does not agree with the preceding. This implies really dwellers.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: if he hung there quilts it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥanina said, that you are saying on the sides, but on top it is disqualified.

“Or under it because of fallen leaves.” Rebbi Yose said, they only said, “because of fallen leaves.” Therefore if not because of fallen leaves it is qualified.

MISHNAH: If he drew over it a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing, it is disqualified. But if the roofing was more than these or he cut them off from their roots it is qualified. This is the principle: One does not thatch with anything which may become impure or is not grown from the earth. But with anything which may not become impure and is grown from the earth one does thatch.

Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemia, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he used steps of ladders for roofing it is (qualified) [disqualified]. Male parts, it is qualified. Female parts, it is disqualified. If he roofed with bundles of flax, it is disqualified, with raw flax it is qualified. If he roofed it with ropes, there are Tannaim who state, qualified, and there are Tannaim who state, disqualified. He who said qualified, with bast ropes; but he who said disqualified, with linen ropes.

Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemia, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he used steps of ladders for roofing it is (qualified) [disqualified]. Male parts, it is qualified. Female parts, it is disqualified. If he roofed with bundles of flax, it is disqualified, with raw flax it is qualified. If he roofed it with ropes, there are Tannaim who state, qualified, and there are Tannaim who state, disqualified. He who said qualified, with bast ropes; but he who said disqualified, with linen ropes.

Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemia, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he used steps of ladders for roofing it is (qualified) [disqualified]. Male parts, it is qualified. Female parts, it is disqualified. If he roofed with bundles of flax, it is disqualified, with raw flax it is qualified. If he roofed it with ropes, there are Tannaim who state, qualified, and there are Tannaim who state, disqualified. He who said qualified, with bast ropes; but he who said disqualified, with linen ropes.

Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemia, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he used steps of ladders for roofing it is (qualified) [disqualified]. Male parts, it is qualified. Female parts, it is disqualified. If he roofed with bundles of flax, it is disqualified, with raw flax it is qualified. If he roofed it with ropes, there are Tannaim who state, qualified, and there are Tannaim who state, disqualified. He who said qualified, with bast ropes; but he who said disqualified, with linen ropes.

Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemia, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he used steps of ladders for roofing it is (qualified) [disqualified]. Male parts, it is qualified. Female parts, it is disqualified. If he roofed with bundles of flax, it is disqualified, with raw flax it is qualified. If he roofed it with ropes, there are Tannaim who state, qualified, and there are Tannaim who state, disqualified. He who said qualified, with bast ropes; but he who said disqualified, with linen ropes.

MISHNAH: One does not thatch with bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of shoots; but all of them are qualified if untied. All of them are qualified as walls.

MISHNAH: One does not thatch with bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of shoots; but all of them are qualified if untied. All of them are qualified as walls.

MISHNAH: One may use planks as roofing, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Meïr forbids. If he put there a plank four hand-breadths wide it is qualified on condition that he not sleep under it.

Samuel said, this you only are saying lengthwise; but crosswise it is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, both lengthwise and crosswise are qualified. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Why are Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both saying? He told them, because disqualified roofing disqualifies only in four cubits. A baraita disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: A sukkah which only contains his head, most of his body, and his table. If he brought a plank and added from it three hand-breadths. If you would say crosswise, this is impossible since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible not to sleep under it.

Samuel said, this you only are saying lengthwise; but crosswise it is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, both lengthwise and crosswise are qualified. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Why are Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both saying? He told them, because disqualified roofing disqualifies only in four cubits. A baraita disagrees with Rav Hamnuna: A sukkah which only contains his head, most of his body, and his table. If he brought a plank and added from it three hand-breadths. If you would say crosswise, this is impossible since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following the words of him who disqualifies here it disqualifies there. So we have to hold lengthwise, but it is impossible not to sleep under it.

MISHNAH: If one is roofing his sukkah with spits or with girders from the bed frame, if the distance between them is equal to their diameter it is qualified. If somebody hollows out a grain stack for a sukkah, it is no sukkah.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because it looks like a storage. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, you shall make for yourself, not from what already was made for you. What is the difference between them? If it is in it. In Rebbi Ḥiyya’s opinion it is disqualified, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is qualified.

MISHNAH: If one drops walls down from top to bottom, if they remain higher than three hand-breadths it is disqualified. From bottom to top, if it reaches ten hand-breadths it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, just as from bottom to top ten hand-breadths so from top to bottom ten hand-breadths. If the roofing is three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths; disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated both. “Disqualified space disqualifies in three hand-breadths,” as we have stated: “If the roofing is three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” “Disqualified roofing disqualifies in four cubits,” as we have stated: “If a house partially collapsed and he thatched over it, it is disqualified if from the walls to the thatching it is four cubits.” Therefore less is qualified. May one sleep under that? Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv answered: pourable mud completes a miqweh but one may not immerse in it, here also it completes the sukkah but one may not sleep under it. Ḥizqiah said, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Cahana, because it looks like a bent wall. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, why do we not say, because disqualified roofing only disqualifies in four cubits?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that it is qualified if it is built on four stones or otherwise elevated from the ground at least one hand-breadth. It was stated: If one builds his sukkah like the house of the Lebanon Forest it is qualified. For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Eliezer.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that it is qualified if it is built on four stones or otherwise elevated from the ground at least one hand-breadth. It was stated: If one builds his sukkah like the house of the Lebanon Forest it is qualified. For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Eliezer.

HALAKHAH: “One who sleeps under the bed,” etc. There, we have stated: “But one may spread it over single posts of the bed.” And here he says so? Rebbi Eliezer said, there he and his toga are under the sukkah, but here he and his (bed) [toga] are under the (sukkah) [bed]. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he said, action has precedence over study, and here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah thinks that one sleeping under the bed is like the one sleeping under the sukkah. So much more is Rebbi Jehudah’s argument inverted, as we have stated there, “[Rebbi Jehudah says,] if there are no dwellers in the upper one the lower is qualified.” Therefore if there are dwellers in the upper one the lower is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, there is another space, but here there is no other space.

MISHNAH: If one supports his sukkah by the frame of the couch it is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it cannot stand by itself it is disqualified.

MISHNAH: A wilted sukkah whose shade is more than its sunshine is qualified. A stiff one like a house, even though the stars are not visible from inside, is qualified.

MISHNAH: A wilted sukkah whose shade is more than its sunshine is qualified. A stiff one like a house, even though the stars are not visible from inside, is qualified.

MISHNAH: One who made his sukkah on top of a cart or a ship is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday; on top of a tree or on a camel is qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Two human-made {walls}and one a tree, or two by trees and one human-made are qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Three human-made and one a tree is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday. This is the principle: In any case where it can stand by itself when the tree is removed, it is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday.

MISHNAH: One who made his sukkah on top of a cart or a ship is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday; on top of a tree or on a camel is qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Two human-made {walls}and one a tree, or two by trees and one human-made are qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Three human-made and one a tree is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday. This is the principle: In any case where it can stand by itself when the tree is removed, it is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday.

MISHNAH: One who made his sukkah on top of a cart or a ship is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday; on top of a tree or on a camel is qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Two human-made {walls}and one a tree, or two by trees and one human-made are qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Three human-made and one a tree is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday. This is the principle: In any case where it can stand by itself when the tree is removed, it is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday.

MISHNAH: One who made his sukkah on top of a cart or a ship is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday; on top of a tree or on a camel is qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Two human-made {walls}and one a tree, or two by trees and one human-made are qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Three human-made and one a tree is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday. This is the principle: In any case where it can stand by itself when the tree is removed, it is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday.

MISHNAH: One who made his sukkah on top of a cart or a ship is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday; on top of a tree or on a camel is qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Two human-made {walls}and one a tree, or two by trees and one human-made are qualified but one may not enter it on the holiday. Three human-made and one a tree is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday. This is the principle: In any case where it can stand by itself when the tree is removed, it is qualified and one may enter it on the holiday.

MISHNAH: If one makes his sukkah between trees it is qualified. Agents for meritorious deeds are not liable in matters of sukkah. Sick persons and their caregivers are not liable in matters of sukkah. One eats and drinks casually outside the sukkah.

MISHNAH: If a person’s head and most of his body was in the sukkah but his table inside the house, the House of Shammai declare it disqualified but the House of Hillel qualified. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran and found him with his head and most of his body in the sukkah but his table inside the house. The House of Shammai answered them, is this a proof? They said to him, if you are used to do this, you never in your life did fulfill the obligation of sukkah.

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up lulav is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified. If it was truncated, its leaves broken out, it is disqualified. If its leaves were spread out, it is qualified; Rebbi Jehudah says, he shall tie them at the top. The stone palms of Iron Mountain are qualified. Any lulav three hand-breadths long to shake it is qualified.

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up lulav is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified. If it was truncated, its leaves broken out, it is disqualified. If its leaves were spread out, it is qualified; Rebbi Jehudah says, he shall tie them at the top. The stone palms of Iron Mountain are qualified. Any lulav three hand-breadths long to shake it is qualified.

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up lulav is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified. If it was truncated, its leaves broken out, it is disqualified. If its leaves were spread out, it is qualified; Rebbi Jehudah says, he shall tie them at the top. The stone palms of Iron Mountain are qualified. Any lulav three hand-breadths long to shake it is qualified.

A ram’s horn of idolatry or a seduced city. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is qualified. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is disqualified. Everybody agrees about a lulav that it is disqualified. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a lulav? Rebbi Yose said, about a lulav it is written: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Not from what is forbidden for usufruct. But here, a day of horn blowing it shall be for you. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation by the thing itself. But here he fulfills his obligation by the sound. Is there a sound which is forbidden for usufruct?

A ram’s horn of idolatry or a seduced city. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is qualified. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is disqualified. Everybody agrees about a lulav that it is disqualified. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a lulav? Rebbi Yose said, about a lulav it is written: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Not from what is forbidden for usufruct. But here, a day of horn blowing it shall be for you. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation by the thing itself. But here he fulfills his obligation by the sound. Is there a sound which is forbidden for usufruct?

Where do they disagree? If he robbed it smoothed. But if he robbed it and smoothed it, he owes him money. If he robbed a lulav from one, a myrtle branch from another, and a willow branch from a third and tied them together? Let us hear from the following: A robbed sukkah, there are Tannaim who stated, it is qualified; there are Tannaim who stated, it is disqualified. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who said, it is qualified, if he robbed the real estate. He who said, it is disqualified, if he robbed the agricultural waste. It is impossible that he not tie them together. If he places it from the top. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In every case it is disqualified. What is the robbed one which is disqualified? Any time a person enters another’s sukkah without his knowledge. As the following. Gamliel the twin made himself a sukkah on the market. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish passed by and told him, who gave you permission?

Where do they disagree? If he robbed it smoothed. But if he robbed it and smoothed it, he owes him money. If he robbed a lulav from one, a myrtle branch from another, and a willow branch from a third and tied them together? Let us hear from the following: A robbed sukkah, there are Tannaim who stated, it is qualified; there are Tannaim who stated, it is disqualified. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who said, it is qualified, if he robbed the real estate. He who said, it is disqualified, if he robbed the agricultural waste. It is impossible that he not tie them together. If he places it from the top. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In every case it is disqualified. What is the robbed one which is disqualified? Any time a person enters another’s sukkah without his knowledge. As the following. Gamliel the twin made himself a sukkah on the market. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish passed by and told him, who gave you permission?

“Dried up is disqualified.” Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: The dried-up is disqualified because the dead ones cannot praise the Eternal. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “the dried up one is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah told them, do they not have their sons inherit their lulavim in the port cities overseas? They told him, one does not make inferences from emergency situations.” They asked before Rebbi Avinna, if its fringe was dried up, what? What is the difference to when its head was chopped off? He told them, the first is splendor, the second is not splendor.

The following are the stone palms of Iron Mountain which are qualified: Any of which the top of one reaches the root of the next. It was stated: Burned is disqualified, looking like burned is qualified.

The following are the stone palms of Iron Mountain which are qualified: Any of which the top of one reaches the root of the next. It was stated: Burned is disqualified, looking like burned is qualified.

Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. So is the Mishnah: If one can shake it, it is qualified. It was stated: Myrtle and willow twig three, and lulav four. It was stated, by the cubit of five {hand-breadths}, the words of Rebbi Tarphon, but the Sages are saying, by the cubit of six. For Rebbi Tarphon, large hand-breadths; in the opinion of the Sages, thin hand-breadths. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Patriarch: The lulav a hand-breadth. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the hyssop a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon confirmed it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: the lulav a hand-breadth, the hyssop a hand-breadth, the ram’s horn a hand-breadth, the placenta a hand-breadth, and some are saying, also the third wall a hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, the lulav a hand-breadth except the spine? The hyssop a hand-breadth except for the stalk? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav; Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Parnakh, Rav Mattanah, Yose bar Manisha in the name of Rav: The lulav a hand-breadth except for the spine; the hyssop a hand-breadth except for its stalks.

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up myrtle is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified. If it was truncated, its leaves broken out, or its berries more than its leaves, it is disqualified; if one reduced their number it is qualified but one may not reduce on the holiday.

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up willow twig is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified. If it was truncated, its leaves broken out, or the osier are disqualified. Wilted, and of which part of the leaves have fallen off, and from an unirrigated place, are qualified.

HALAKHAH: “It is written, and brook-willows. I admit not only from a brook, from where also from an unirrigated place or from mountains? The verse says, and willows. Abba Shaul says, brook-willows, two. A willow twig for the lulav and a willow twig for the Temple.” Then why was it written and brook-willows? To exclude the osier. “What is an osier? If its is like a sickle. It was stated: Like a sickle it is disqualified, like a plane it is (qualified) [disqualified]. What is a disqualified willow twig? The leaf is round and the stem white. What is a qualified willow twig? The leaf is long and the stem red.”

HALAKHAH: “It is written, and brook-willows. I admit not only from a brook, from where also from an unirrigated place or from mountains? The verse says, and willows. Abba Shaul says, brook-willows, two. A willow twig for the lulav and a willow twig for the Temple.” Then why was it written and brook-willows? To exclude the osier. “What is an osier? If its is like a sickle. It was stated: Like a sickle it is disqualified, like a plane it is (qualified) [disqualified]. What is a disqualified willow twig? The leaf is round and the stem white. What is a qualified willow twig? The leaf is long and the stem red.”

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up etrog is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified. Of `orlah, it is disqualified. Of impure heave, it is disqualified; of pure one should not take but if he took it is qualified. Of demay, the House of Shammai disqualify but the House of Hillel qualify; of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is qualified.

MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up etrog is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified. Of `orlah, it is disqualified. Of impure heave, it is disqualified; of pure one should not take but if he took it is qualified. Of demay, the House of Shammai disqualify but the House of Hillel qualify; of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is qualified.

MISHNAH: If scabs covered most of it, or its protuberance was removed, or it was perforated, or peeled, or cracked, if anything was missing it is disqualified. If scabs covered a smaller part, or the stem was removed, or it was perforated but nothing was missing, it is qualified. A black etrog is disqualified, and the green like leeks Rebbi Meïr qualifies but Rebbi Jehudah disqualifies.

“If its protuberance was removed.” There, they say: its lily. Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula said, the peak. If it was perforated but not pierced inside it is qualified, as we have stated there, “if the stem was removed, or it was perforated but nothing was missing, it is qualified.”

“If its protuberance was removed.” There, they say: its lily. Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula said, the peak. If it was perforated but not pierced inside it is qualified, as we have stated there, “if the stem was removed, or it was perforated but nothing was missing, it is qualified.”

“A black etrog is disqualified.” What comes from the black one is qualified.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yose said, is everything qualified for lulav subject to tithes and everything disqualified for lulav not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes! It is reasonable {to hold that} Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written fruit and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball, which are disqualified for lulav but subject to tithes.

We have stated, “like a walnut.” There are Tannaim who state, “up to a walnut.” He who says “like a walnut”, as a walnut itself is qualified. He who says “up to a walnut”, as a walnut itself is disqualified.

MISHNAH: One ties the lulav only with its own kind, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, even with a string. Rebbi Meïr said, it happened that the people of Jerusalem did tie their lulavim with golden jewels. They told him, under these they tied it with its own kind. Where did they move? At thank the Eternal beginning and end, and also at please, Eternal, please save, following the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, also at please, Eternal, please give success. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was watching Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua, when all the people were shaking their lulavim but they moved them only at please, Eternal, please save. If somebody returns from a trip where he had no lulav, when he enters his house he can take it at his table. If he did not take it in the morning he may take it in the afternoon since the entire day is qualified for the lulav.

It was stated: Bodily defective ones. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, may bodily defective ones enter between the altar and the Temple entrance? He told him, they were qualified.

They wanted to say that the large {hole} was for water, the small one for wine, for Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: A hole which does not let pass water passes wine, what does not let pass wine passes oil, does not let pass oil passes honey. And even if you say it is the other way around, is that not Rebbi Jehudah’s? And Rebbi Jehudah said, a log he was pouring all eight days. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he preceded them before the sacrifice, what? If he poured in the night, what? If he did not pour today may he pour the next day? He said to him, let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: And its libations, the same for libations of water as for libations of wine. This implies that if he preceded them before the sacrifice, it is qualified. If he poured in the night, it is qualified. If he did not pour today he may not pour the next day, because if the day passed, its sacrifice passed.

They wanted to say that the large {hole} was for water, the small one for wine, for Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: A hole which does not let pass water passes wine, what does not let pass wine passes oil, does not let pass oil passes honey. And even if you say it is the other way around, is that not Rebbi Jehudah’s? And Rebbi Jehudah said, a log he was pouring all eight days. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he preceded them before the sacrifice, what? If he poured in the night, what? If he did not pour today may he pour the next day? He said to him, let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: And its libations, the same for libations of water as for libations of wine. This implies that if he preceded them before the sacrifice, it is qualified. If he poured in the night, it is qualified. If he did not pour today he may not pour the next day, because if the day passed, its sacrifice passed.

They wanted to say, if he transgressed and brought it is qualified. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner stated before Rebbi Jonah that uncovered water and wine are disqualified from the altar. What is the reason? And one sheep from 200, from the drink of Israel, from something permitted to Israel. So far water, wine? Rebbi Sabbatai said, which gladdens God and men.

They asked before Rebbi Ila, so far for a commandment. From where a prohibition? The verse says, you shall come there and bring there. Where do we hold? If for a commandment, it already had been said. But if it cannot refer to a commandment, refer it to a prohibition. *Does one transgress about a Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time? It was found stated, about Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time one transgresses. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that you should not say that since if it was lost and found after the owner was exculpated, its body is brought as well-being offering, therefore it was a question whether one transgresses about a Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time. They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does one transgress between one holiday and the next? Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated, a holiday offering which was not brought on the first shall be brought on the second; does one permit him to transgress? In addition from the following: You shall do, a positive commandment. Guard, a prohibition. Does he not transgress a positive commandment and a prohibition only after three holidays? Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: If one said, I take upon me the obligation to bring an elevation offering on Monday. Once Monday has passed and he did not bring it, he transgresses. If its year is complete you cast down the last day and he transgresses every single day. If it is so, if three holidays have passed you cast down the last holiday and he transgresses every single holiday. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if its year was completed on Pentecost, is it possible to say it is not qualified and he transgresses?

As this: The fat of my holiday offering shall not stay until the morning. But could parts from weekday be brought on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath. <rebbi yose asked, if the fourteenth fell on a sabbath,> no holiday offering comes with it, that the Torah has to say, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not stay”? And here, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not tarry”. Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he transgressed and brought, is it not qualified? Since it is qualified if he transgressed and brought, he would transgress.

As this: The fat of my holiday offering shall not stay until the morning. But could parts from weekday be brought on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath. <rebbi yose asked, if the fourteenth fell on a sabbath,> no holiday offering comes with it, that the Torah has to say, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not stay”? And here, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not tarry”. Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he transgressed and brought, is it not qualified? Since it is qualified if he transgressed and brought, he would transgress.

HALAKHAH: There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on the Day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. There are Tannaim who state, every item is judged on its proper time and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. Our Mishnah follows him who said, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time, as we have stated: “and on Tabernacles they are judged about water.” The words of Rav imply that all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day, since it is stated in the blowing prayer of Rav: “This is the day, the beginning of Your works, remembrance of the First Day, for it is a decree for Israel, a law for the God of Jacob. On it will be proclaimed for countries which one will be for war, and which one for peace, which one for famine, and which one for plenty. And creatures will be counted on it, to remember them for life or for death.” This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, an individual is judged every moment. What is the reason? You are counting him in the mornings; in moments You are examining him. You are counting him in the mornings, this refers to his provisions; in moments You are examining him, this refers to his food. The Elder Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi: King and public are judged every day. What is the reason? To look after the right of His servant and of His people Israel; each day’s affairs on each day. Rebbi Levi said, He will judge the dry land in equity, will pass judgment over peoples in straightness. The Holy One, praise to Him, judges Israel during daytime when they are occupied earning merit, and the nations during the night, when they are resting from evil deeds. Samuel said, as He judges Israel so he judges the nations. How does Samuel confirm that He will pass judgment over peoples in straightness? He judges them according to the qualified among them; He remembers for them the deeds of Jethro, he remembers for them the deeds of Raḥab the prostitute.

MISHNAH: A father and son who saw the new moon should go; not that they could combine one with the other but that if one of them should be found disqualified the second one could team up with another person. Rebbi Simeon says, a father and his son and all relatives are qualified for the testimony of the new moon. Rebbi Yose said, it happened that that Tobias the healer saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slave. The Cohanim accepted him and his son and disqualified his slave; but when he came to the Court they accepted him and his slave but disqualified his son.

MISHNAH: The following are disqualified: The dice-player, the lender on interest, participants in pigeon contests, dealers in sabbatical produce, and slaves. This is the principle: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.

MISHNAH: The following are disqualified: The dice-player, the lender on interest, participants in pigeon contests, dealers in sabbatical produce, and slaves. This is the principle: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

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

MISHNAH: All shofarot are qualified except from bovines because this is a horn. Rebbi Yose said, are not all shofarot called horn, as it is said, when the ram’s horn sounds, when you hear the sound of the shofar.

“Around its mouthpiece covered with gold.” If it was gilded inside it is disqualified, outside it is qualified. If he gilded it at the mouthpiece or if its sound became heavy because of the gilding it is disqualified.

MISHNAH: A shofar which was split and glued together is disqualified. If one glued together pieces of shofarot it is disqualified. If it was pierced and he plugged it, if it obstructs blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified.

HALAKHAH: “A shofar which was split and glued together is disqualified.” For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Nathan. “If one glued together pieces of shofarot it is disqualified.” This also is Rebbi Nathan’s. “If it was pierced and he plugged it,” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Nathan’s, as it was stated, if it was pierced and then repaired, whether with its own kind or another kind, if it obstructs blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified; Rebbi Nathan says, with its own kind it is qualified, not with its own kind it is disqualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: so is the Mishnah: “if it was obstructing blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified.” Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Only if he plugged it. But if he did not plug it it is qualified since all sounds of a shofar are qualified.

HALAKHAH: “A shofar which was split and glued together is disqualified.” For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Nathan. “If one glued together pieces of shofarot it is disqualified.” This also is Rebbi Nathan’s. “If it was pierced and he plugged it,” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Nathan’s, as it was stated, if it was pierced and then repaired, whether with its own kind or another kind, if it obstructs blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified; Rebbi Nathan says, with its own kind it is qualified, not with its own kind it is disqualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: so is the Mishnah: “if it was obstructing blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified.” Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Only if he plugged it. But if he did not plug it it is qualified since all sounds of a shofar are qualified.

HALAKHAH: “A shofar which was split and glued together is disqualified.” For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Nathan. “If one glued together pieces of shofarot it is disqualified.” This also is Rebbi Nathan’s. “If it was pierced and he plugged it,” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Nathan’s, as it was stated, if it was pierced and then repaired, whether with its own kind or another kind, if it obstructs blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified; Rebbi Nathan says, with its own kind it is qualified, not with its own kind it is disqualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: so is the Mishnah: “if it was obstructing blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified.” Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Only if he plugged it. But if he did not plug it it is qualified since all sounds of a shofar are qualified.

HALAKHAH: “A shofar which was split and glued together is disqualified.” For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Nathan. “If one glued together pieces of shofarot it is disqualified.” This also is Rebbi Nathan’s. “If it was pierced and he plugged it,” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Nathan’s, as it was stated, if it was pierced and then repaired, whether with its own kind or another kind, if it obstructs blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified; Rebbi Nathan says, with its own kind it is qualified, not with its own kind it is disqualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: so is the Mishnah: “if it was obstructing blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified.” Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Only if he plugged it. But if he did not plug it it is qualified since all sounds of a shofar are qualified.

HALAKHAH: “A shofar which was split and glued together is disqualified.” For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Nathan. “If one glued together pieces of shofarot it is disqualified.” This also is Rebbi Nathan’s. “If it was pierced and he plugged it,” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Nathan’s, as it was stated, if it was pierced and then repaired, whether with its own kind or another kind, if it obstructs blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified; Rebbi Nathan says, with its own kind it is qualified, not with its own kind it is disqualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: so is the Mishnah: “if it was obstructing blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified.” Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Only if he plugged it. But if he did not plug it it is qualified since all sounds of a shofar are qualified.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it only said “somebody was passing by.” Therefore if he stood still, the presumption is that he listened purposefully. “If he put one shofar inside another shofar(,we shall say) [and blew], if one heard the sound of the inner one, he has fulfilled his obligation, if one heard the sound of the outer one, he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Abinna asked, what if he turned it inside out? Let us hear from the following: “If he scratched it inside it is disqualified, outside it is qualified.” He only said, he scratched; therefore if he turned it inside out it is disqualified. What is the difference between the two? One eliminated the inner space, the other did not eliminate the inner space.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Does this follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle neither with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. Rebbi Yose said, the language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a ṭerefa are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a ṭerefa which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching. And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the sons of Jehudah ben Shamuai that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Does this follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle neither with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. Rebbi Yose said, the language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a ṭerefa are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a ṭerefa which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching. And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the sons of Jehudah ben Shamuai that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If he slaughtered it and wolves ate its intestines it is qualified, for the presumption of intestines is qualification. Should one not worry that maybe they were punctured? The presumption of intestines is that they are qualified. It was stated: But one may bring it on its hide. What does he do? He leaves one limb on it and brings it together with it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If he slaughtered it and wolves ate its intestines it is qualified, for the presumption of intestines is qualification. Should one not worry that maybe they were punctured? The presumption of intestines is that they are qualified. It was stated: But one may bring it on its hide. What does he do? He leaves one limb on it and brings it together with it.

HALAKHAH: “From when does one mention the Power of rains,” etc. The reason of Rebbi Eliezer, because these four kinds grow on water, they become attorneys for water. Another explanation, when the slave serves all his master’s needs he asks for his reward from him. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is it not that when the slave has served all his master’s needs and his master is satisfied with him that he asks his [sustenance] from him? Another explanation. The slave asks for his reward only close to the time when his reward is due. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, from the time one takes the lulav; Rebbi Joshua says, from the time he puts it down. In the opinion of the latter Tanna, the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in the first is his opinion in the latter. The argument of Rebbi Joshua is inverted. There, he says from the concluding holiday, but here he says, from the time he puts it down. Rebbi Mana says, because the entire day is qualified to take the lulav. Should he not mention in the evening? Not everybody is there. Then he should mention it in the morning. He would think that maybe they mentioned in the evening and he will mention. Since he sees that they do not mention in the first {prayer} but mention in the later {prayer}, he understands that they did not mention in the evening. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to him, so was your father Rebbi Jonah arguing it.

The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his ancestors: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that in case he falls on his face the Eternal, praise to Him, will tell him, “get up”, should not fall down. This applies to a single person {praying for} the community.

What are “the families of the pestle stealers and the fig hackers”? But when Jeroboam ben Nabat installed border guards on the roads which did not permit Israel to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, everybody who was qualified and sin-fearing in that generation brought his first fruits, put them in a basket, covered them with dried figs and took the pestle. He takes the basket on his shoulder and the pestle in his hand. When he reaches that guard-post they were asking him, where are you going? He answered him, I am only going to make these few dried figs into a single fig cake with this pestle in my hand. After he had passed this guard, he adorned them and brought them to Jerusalem. Why does one say, the family of Salmai the puller-down? But anybody who was volunteering logs and firewood for the altar brought wood and makes them into a kind of steps, assembles them into a kind of ladder, and puts them on his shoulder. When he reaches that guard he asks him, where are you going? He answers him, I am only going to bring two pigeon chicks from this dovecote over there using the ladder on my shoulder. After he had passed this guard, he disassembled {his package} and brought it to Jerusalem. Since they put themselves in danger for the meritorious deed that merited a good reputation in the world, and about them he says, the remembrance of the just is a blessing.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: The entire month is qualified for reading the scroll. What is the reason? The month which for them was turned from sorrow to joy. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, but only up to the Fifteenth. As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. That is what you are saying to read the scroll. But making a dinner one makes only on the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth; and one distributes [to the poor] only on the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth. The eyes of the poor are only directed to the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth. Then these should be for reading and those for the dinner? Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav: These days are remembered and executed. Remembered by reading. And executed by dinner. This implies that the Scroll is given to be analyzed Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is said here, words of peace and truth. And it is said there, truth buy but do not sell. It is like the truth of the Torah. This one needs ruling, that one needs ruling. This one is given to be analyzed, that one is given to be analyzed. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The scroll which Samuel handed to David is given to be analyzed. What is the reason? Everything in writing, that is the Masora. For the hand of the Eternal, that is the Holy Spirit. To me for understanding, from here that it is given to be analyzed. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, and why do we not say, the plan of everything was in spirit with him? Rebbi Mana said, what is בָר֨וּחַ֙? by the wind of his mouth.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even Torah scrolls they only permitted to be written in Greek. They investigated and found that the Torah may be correctly translated only into Greek. A villager invented for them Aramaic from the Greek. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Akylas the proselyte translated the Torah before Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua; they praised him [and said to him], you are a superhuman beauty. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, why do we not say there is a rule valid for Torah scrolls which does not apply to Tefillin and Mezuzot, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two sheets, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single sheets. Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe asked, a stronger question, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two hides, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single hides. The colleagues said before Rebbi Mana, or should we say, one column of two different hides? Is that not stronger? He said to them, because even scrolls are not written in this way. One suspends in scrolls; one suspends neither in Tefillin nor in Mezuzot. One does not suspend in scrolls which were written as Tefillin and Mezuzot; one suspends in Tefillin and Mezuzot written as scrolls. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi: If he was writing אלא עם, if the paragraph was made in this way it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi bar Ḥinena: The script of scrolls is used as script of Tefillin and Mezuzot.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: If there is a hole in the hip of a he, if one shaves it off and there remains a small hip it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If a gimel was at the end (of the border) [of the leather]. If one shaves it off and there remains a small hip it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Ashian bar Nidba. If there was a hole in the middle of a bet. If the (border) [leather] surrounds it on every side it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it turns out that Rav Ḥisda follows Rav and both disagree with the system of Ashian bar Nidba. The colleagues are saying, Ashian bar Nidba parallels Rebbi Joḥanan.