rav

How do we hold? If she is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

It was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. Similarly, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that they did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years,, similarly there was no fourth-year orchard until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

Rav had flax which was blighted. He asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one slaughter a bird and mix its blood with flax seed? He said, a cadaver. Why did he not say to him, a torn one? Because of Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said [the blood of] a torn [bird] must be covered. But did not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: From the time when they came from the diaspora, flax was never blighted and wine never became vinegar; they considered this to be due to the merit of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and his sons. But Rav is like (Is. 46:12): “Listen to me, mighty of heart, who are far from charity!” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, all the world depend on charity but these on strong arms. But the other one said that all good things and consolations come to the world in their merit but they themselves do not profit at all. For example Mar Zuṭra who prayed and fasted for others but for himself he never fasted.

Rav had flax which was blighted. He asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one slaughter a bird and mix its blood with flax seed? He said, a cadaver. Why did he not say to him, a torn one? Because of Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said [the blood of] a torn [bird] must be covered. But did not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: From the time when they came from the diaspora, flax was never blighted and wine never became vinegar; they considered this to be due to the merit of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and his sons. But Rav is like (Is. 46:12): “Listen to me, mighty of heart, who are far from charity!” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, all the world depend on charity but these on strong arms. But the other one said that all good things and consolations come to the world in their merit but they themselves do not profit at all. For example Mar Zuṭra who prayed and fasted for others but for himself he never fasted.

Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that it is forbidden. How is it forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is forbidden from the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, it is forbidden from their words. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis support us, we have stated there: “One may not bring cereal offerings, first fruits, and cereal offerings accompanying animal sacrifices before the ‘omer and if he brought they are invalid.” And Rebbi Joshua the Southerner, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they taught that only for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth. Therefore, on the sixteenth if he transgressed and brought, it is acceptable. If you would say it is forbidden from the Torah there should be no difference; whether he brought on the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth, if he transgressed and brought, it should be invalid. In addition from the following, as Rebbi Zeïra said: Since Rav grew up with the opinions of the sons of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, he holds with them. If you say that it is forbidden from the Torah, he would follow Rebbi Joḥanan!

There, they were apprehensive to have the great fast for two days. Rav Ḥisda said to them, why do you bring yourselves into that great uncertainty. One may trust that the Court is never lazy. The father of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was apprehensive for himself and fasted two days; his intestines split and he died.

There, they were apprehensive to have the great fast for two days. Rav Ḥisda said to them, why do you bring yourselves into that great uncertainty. One may trust that the Court is never lazy. The father of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was apprehensive for himself and fasted two days; his intestines split and he died.

What are the rules “in between”? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the first state. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the final state. What means “in between”? If somebody makes dough from ṭevel, its ḥallah is obligated for heave and its heave for ḥallah. From where that ḥallah is obligated for heave? Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Martha in the name of Rav: (Num. 15:20) “Ḥallah you shall lift heave,” from ḥallah you shall lift heave. From where that heave is subject to ḥallah? From our difficulty to explain that verse, the one where it is written: “Beginning … you shall lift ḥallah”.

Rav said, dough for kutaḥ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Abun said, perhaps she will change her mind to make it white Zwieback. Rebbi Mana said, we have to announce publicly that those who make ‘abiṣin should make less than the measure since they think it is exempt but it is obligated.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, ḥallah might be profane, I would say it is permitted to wait with it. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “Ḥallah and heave. About them one is liable to death and a fifth”.

Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down and did not cleanse himself, it is forbidden. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent. As Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down and did not cleanse himself, his flesh touches the excrement.

Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down and did not cleanse himself, it is forbidden. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent. As Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down and did not cleanse himself, his flesh touches the excrement.

It was stated: “Rebbi Illaï says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg, fills it with olives and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “They said to him, the only food fluids called fluid are wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. [One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit?] Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Assi: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he siphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before lumps were formed and he siphoned off, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia followed Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before [Rebbi Immi] and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

Rebbi Yose was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. He heard the voice of Rebbi Hila who was sitting and stating: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain; Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The greater part grain and the taste that of grain. He said, he got it wrong: we had a note that Rebbi Assi teaches like Rav Huna.

Was is left? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaїm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting, exempt when mixed.

This means that one may give heave from bad for good. It parallels what Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one gives heave from the leaves of carrots for carrots at a place where [the leaves] are eaten. This happened with Gamliel the twin who had forgotten to put his carrots in order. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him: Is there greenery? Give heave from the greenery!

Rebbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For ḥallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical.

If this is the case, also movables? As we have stated: What is the difference between real estate and movables? Only that real estate is given to the people of the watch but movables to any Cohen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rav Sheshet: (Deut. 18:1) “The gifts to the Eternal and His inheritance they shall eat.” Since the gifts are for the people of the watch, so is the inheritance.

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

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

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

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥisda, both say: they differ in the uninformed case. What are we dealing with? If it is certain that it lives off the old tree, everybody agrees it is permitted. If it is certain that it lives off the young tree, everybody agrees it is forbidden. We must be dealing with the uninformed case. How could one know? Rebbi Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If the leaves are turned towards the young tree one may be sure that it lives from the old one; if the leaves are turned towards the old tree one may be sure that it lives from the young one. Rebbi Yudan bar Ḥanin said, a sign: He who eats from his neighbor’s is ashamed to look at him. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if the leaves have fallen off.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

How is this? One says, all sources of taste by one in 100; the other one says, all sources of taste by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the forearm as one in 60 of the ram. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the forearm as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the forearm. But if you remove the bones from the forearm, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.

(In addition,) “if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.” Those of the house of Rebbi Yannai estimate by purslain. How does one know? Rav Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah: He takes one out and leaves one in [the ground]; what the first one is less, the other did increase.

“Anqoqlot and the grape skins.” Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis in the name of Rav: Grapes which went bad before they were one-third ripe. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even after they were one-third ripe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is a stenographic expression: “Grapes becoming bad at a third.”

Rebbi Joḥanan asked Gamliel the Twin: Are you used to take ḥallah from demay? He answered him, did not Samuel, the brother of Rav Berekhia, say that from the moment they decreed demay, most people separate it in their houses? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a condition of the court that ḥallah be in the Northernmost part.

There, we have stated: “Dyers’ water disables a miqweh by three log but not by a change in color.” Abba, the son of Rav Naḥman, said, the words of Rebbi Meïr because it is visibly drawn. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: Rebbi Meïr’s parallels that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say because of souring it makes sour, so Rebbi Meïr says because it is visibly drawn.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

If he dyed it and then dyed a second time and spoiled it, if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to him who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to him who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden, here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large?” Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind, can it be compared to: “Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them, but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks.

“And kilaim by rabbinic decree.” Samuel said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden. Rav Huna said, when Westerners descended from there, they said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and proved it. (Lev. 19:19) “You must keep My basic Laws, your animals you should not mate kilaim, your field you shall not sow kilaim, …, ša‘aṭnez shall not come upon you.” It bracketed kilaim of seeds with kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals. Since kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals do not depend on the Land and apply inside and outside the Land, so also kilaim of seeds, while they depend on the Land, do apply inside and outside the Land.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into the public domain and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a public road is in between? Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “One may not make a cavity under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, or caverns. Rebbi Eliezer permits it if a truck loaded with stones can pass over it.” As Rebbi Eliezer said there, under the public domain, it is his, so Rebbi Jehudah said here, under the public domain, it is his. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, if it follows Rebbi Eliezer, he should bring and make the declaration. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac thought that Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that and it remains his permanent property, but Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that but anybody quick to acquire does acquire it.

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into the public domain and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a public road is in between? Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “One may not make a cavity under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, or caverns. Rebbi Eliezer permits it if a truck loaded with stones can pass over it.” As Rebbi Eliezer said there, under the public domain, it is his, so Rebbi Jehudah said here, under the public domain, it is his. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, if it follows Rebbi Eliezer, he should bring and make the declaration. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac thought that Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that and it remains his permanent property, but Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that but anybody quick to acquire does acquire it.

HALAKHAH: : “The following bring but do not make the declaration”. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks of a proselyte of the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration, as it is written (Num. 10:29): “Go with us and we shall treat you well.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but: Why did they say “the guardians, the slave, the agent, the woman, the sexless and the hermaphrodite can bring but do not make the declaration,” is not the proselyte mentioned here? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, explain it by the proselyte mentioned here, by the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration.

HALAKHAH: : “The following bring but do not make the declaration”. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks of a proselyte of the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration, as it is written (Num. 10:29): “Go with us and we shall treat you well.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but: Why did they say “the guardians, the slave, the agent, the woman, the sexless and the hermaphrodite can bring but do not make the declaration,” is not the proselyte mentioned here? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, explain it by the proselyte mentioned here, by the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose but Cohanim are used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughtor of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench. Rav Bevai said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, does one whip because of what one is used to do? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment. (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel.

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent. But did we not state: “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated. Rebbi Abba Mari said both, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent. But did we not state: “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated. Rebbi Abba Mari said both, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated.

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

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

The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “For heave and First Fruits one is liable to penalty of death.” He explains it, for Cohanim. But did we not state: “fifth”? Is there a fifth for Cohanim? He explains that the Mishnah is case by case. The first clause for Cohanim, the last for Israel. Does the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan: “They are forbidden to lay persons”? He explains it, less than a legal quantity.

HALAKHAH: If a tree why a vegetable, if a vegetable, why a tree? There, they say that if it grows from the sixth [year] into the Sabbatical [year] it belongs to the owners as if from a tree and is free from tithes as if a vegetable. Rav Hamnuna told them, look at the following [year]! If it grows from the Sabbatical to the eighth year, it should be ownerless as if from a tree and subject to tithes as if a vegetable. Is anything ownerless subject to tithes?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If he was warned, he is whipped. But did we not state: “But one is not guilty because of the blood of crawling beings”? Rebbi Abba said, one is not subject to extirpation for it. But was it not stated: “The blood of two-legged beings which have no minor impurity, the blood of crawling things which have no major impurity”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that is, if they warned him because of blood. But if they warned him because of abomination, he is whipped.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If he was warned, he is whipped. But did we not state: “But one is not guilty because of the blood of crawling beings”? Rebbi Abba said, one is not subject to extirpation for it. But was it not stated: “The blood of two-legged beings which have no minor impurity, the blood of crawling things which have no major impurity”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that is, if they warned him because of blood. But if they warned him because of abomination, he is whipped.

The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eleazar, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says one must bring a “hung” sacrifice for the fat of a koy. Is the Mishnah not following Rav? Since Rav said, for anything that can never be ascertained, one shall not be obliged for a “hung” sacrifice for this doubt. Explain it, they disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar.

The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eleazar, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says one must bring a “hung” sacrifice for the fat of a koy. Is the Mishnah not following Rav? Since Rav said, for anything that can never be ascertained, one shall not be obliged for a “hung” sacrifice for this doubt. Explain it, they disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar.

Is it obvious that it will be sacrificed as a well-being offering? Rebbi Ammi said, it will be sacrificed as a well-being offering. Rav said, one uses it to occupy the altar. Rebbi Zeïra asked: Does a private person who was lazy and did not come [with the group] bring a goat with its horns covered in silver?

HALAKHAH: Rav Huna said: So is the Mishnah (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.”

Huna asked: Does depositing it permit to those lacking time? Rav Mattania said, that means, if he took them up again. But if they stayed in their place they are deposited. Rebbi Jonah asked, if he deposited them in the night?

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable. It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable. It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable. It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable. It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for carrying out one is not liable. It is everybody’s opinion that walking counts as if one was putting down. Where do they disagree? If one is throwing, for Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai considers the air space over karmelit like its essence but the Sages consider the air space over karmelit not like its essence.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for carrying out one is not liable. It is everybody’s opinion that walking counts as if one was putting down. Where do they disagree? If one is throwing, for Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai considers the air space over karmelit like its essence but the Sages consider the air space over karmelit not like its essence.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

Mishnah: “The poor man is liable but the householder is not liable.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the poor man’s hand is within ten hand-breadths from the ground. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if he is distant four [hand-breadths] from the wall. But if he is not distant four [hand-breadths] from the wall, it is karmelit. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simeon Karsanah: If his face was turned towards the public road. But if his face was turned towards the wall it is karmelit.

Rebbi Ḥisda in the name of Ashi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable. Rav said, a leather container which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four wide; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: “A candelabra which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and its flower four [wide]; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.” Rebbi Mana said, not only a candelabra but even a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high with a tablet fixed to its head, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.

From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover (which is on the Ark of the Covenant)from between the two Cherubim. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it is only make a golden wreath as its frame all around? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth.

“Neither is liable.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah, the rabbis in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the category of two people performing one work. Rav asked Rebbi, if another person put a bundle on his back, when he forgot and brought it out? On the occasion of the second repetition he told him, he is liable because it does not compare to this. Rebbi is of the opinion that when he started to walk it is as if he had taken up the object. In the opinion of Rebbi, if he stood in the public domain and threw but ran and caught it in a private domain, what? But is that not Rebbi since Rebbi made the airspace enclosed by walls like its essence? It is only necessary in case he stood in the private domain and threw but ran and and caught it in a public domain, what? It was found stated: Rebbi declares him not liable until the moment it comes to rest.

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated all of these. The sea as we have stated there: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit. A valley as we have stated: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity. During the rainy season it is (private) [public] domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.” A threshold, as we have stated: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden.

Rebbi Zeˋirah in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: landings between pillars are judged as karmelit. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The flowers of the pillars are considered karmelit. There it is necessary that they be higher than three [hand-breadths]; Ḥiyya the son of Rav: Anything which hinders access in the public domain is considered karmelit. The rabbis of Caesarea say, even thistles, even glass. This is necessary if they are not three [hand-breadths] high.

Rebbi Zeˋirah in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: landings between pillars are judged as karmelit. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The flowers of the pillars are considered karmelit. There it is necessary that they be higher than three [hand-breadths]; Ḥiyya the son of Rav: Anything which hinders access in the public domain is considered karmelit. The rabbis of Caesarea say, even thistles, even glass. This is necessary if they are not three [hand-breadths] high.

Rebbi Zeˋirah in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: landings between pillars are judged as karmelit. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The flowers of the pillars are considered karmelit. There it is necessary that they be higher than three [hand-breadths]; Ḥiyya the son of Rav: Anything which hinders access in the public domain is considered karmelit. The rabbis of Caesarea say, even thistles, even glass. This is necessary if they are not three [hand-breadths] high.

And Rebbi Yose said: The threshold about which they spoke is four wide but not ten high. If you would say, ten high and four wide, it is a domain by itself . If you would say, ten high but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Assi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways on condition that he not exchange. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A person should not sit before the barber,” etc. We have stated “close to the afternoon prayers.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, close to darkness. Our Mishnah needs Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita and Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita needs our Mishnah. If Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that he means exactly darkness but not the afternoon prayers. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary. But if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that everywhere “afternoon prayers” is stated it means afternoon prayers, and everywhere “darkness” is stated it means darkness. Since we stated “afternoon prayers” and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “darkness”, this implies that “darkness” stated later refers to the time of afternoon prayers. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother said, our Mishnah refers to the vulgar, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated to fellows. The rabbis of Caesarea say our Mishnah is following Rebbi Jehudah, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the rabbis.

What is the start of bathing? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina said, when he opened his belt. Rav said, when he took off his shoe. As the following. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi was used to hear the lesson of his grandson every Friday. Once he forgot and went bathing in the public baths of Tiberias; he was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s shoulder. He remembered that he had not heard his grandson’s lesson, turned around and left. When was this? Rebbi Derosai said, he was anointing himself. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose says, he had taken off his clothes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, did our teacher not teach us “if they started they should not interrupt”? He said to him, Ḥiyya my son, is that unimportant in your eyes? For anyone who hears the lesson from his grandson is as if he heard it from Sinai. What is the reason? You shall make it known to your sons and grandsons, the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise, take either the very first or the very last [source]. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? Only in image a man wanders. It is written, many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust? That is Rebbi Zeˋira, as Rebbi Zeˋira said, we do not take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise, take either the very first or the very last [source]. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? Only in image a man wanders. It is written, many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust? That is Rebbi Zeˋira, as Rebbi Zeˋira said, we do not take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise, take either the very first or the very last [source]. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? Only in image a man wanders. It is written, many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust? That is Rebbi Zeˋira, as Rebbi Zeˋira said, we do not take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

“Nor start eating.” What is the start of eating? Rebbi Aha, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi: When he washed his hands. Rebbi Aha said, this was said for Qidduš. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for the benediction. Rav had washed his hands when his son Hiyya gave a sign to the waiter, who wanted to serve him. He told him, we already started the meal.

Clarification. Rebbi Miasha and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac were sitting and eating in one of the upper synagogues. There came the time of prayer and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac got up to pray. Rebbi Misha said to him, Teacher, did you not teach us that once one started one does not interrupt? And Ḥizqiah stated, every one who is not under an obligation and does it anyway is called uneducated? He said to him, did we not state, “the bridegroom is not liable,” “the bridegroom if he wants to recite recites.” He answered him, I can explain this following Rabban Gamliel who said, “I shall not listen to you to lift from me the Kingdom of Heaven for one moment.”

Clarification. Rebbi Miasha and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac were sitting and eating in one of the upper synagogues. There came the time of prayer and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac got up to pray. Rebbi Misha said to him, Teacher, did you not teach us that once one started one does not interrupt? And Ḥizqiah stated, every one who is not under an obligation and does it anyway is called uneducated? He said to him, did we not state, “the bridegroom is not liable,” “the bridegroom if he wants to recite recites.” He answered him, I can explain this following Rabban Gamliel who said, “I shall not listen to you to lift from me the Kingdom of Heaven for one moment.”

“Nor sit in judgment.” Rav Jeremiah and Rav Joseph. One said, when they sat down to judge; the other said, when they start presenting their arguments.

“Nor sit in judgment.” Rav Jeremiah and Rav Joseph. One said, when they sat down to judge; the other said, when they start presenting their arguments.

Mishnah “He should not check his garments for lice nor read by candlelight,” etc. Even on weekdays it is forbidden since it is not decent. It was stated: One who checks his garments takes and throws away; only he should not rub. Abba Shaul says, he may rub and throw away, only he should not kill. Ḥizqiah said, one who kills a louse is like one who kills a camel. Samuel broke off its hands and feet and gave if to the children. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun put it in a flask. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalafta said, did we not understand this from the purple snail? Does the purple snail have sinews and bones? But was it not stated: Any which has neither sinews nor bones does not live more than six months? For Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Zevid, the Holy One, praise to Him, turns around His world once in seven years. Qamqama turns into Ḥu-Rav-Padah. Ḥar-Efer turns into Šer. The head louse turns into a scorpion and the one of garments into a lizard. A horse worm turns into a wasp, that of cattle into a bee. A male hyena turns into a female, a field rat turns into a wild boar. The spine of a fish turns into a centipede, of a human into a snake. When? If he does not bow down with his entire spine.

Mishnah “He should not check his garments for lice nor read by candlelight,” etc. Even on weekdays it is forbidden since it is not decent. It was stated: One who checks his garments takes and throws away; only he should not rub. Abba Shaul says, he may rub and throw away, only he should not kill. Ḥizqiah said, one who kills a louse is like one who kills a camel. Samuel broke off its hands and feet and gave if to the children. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun put it in a flask. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalafta said, did we not understand this from the purple snail? Does the purple snail have sinews and bones? But was it not stated: Any which has neither sinews nor bones does not live more than six months? For Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Zevid, the Holy One, praise to Him, turns around His world once in seven years. Qamqama turns into Ḥu-Rav-Padah. Ḥar-Efer turns into Šer. The head louse turns into a scorpion and the one of garments into a lizard. A horse worm turns into a wasp, that of cattle into a bee. A male hyena turns into a female, a field rat turns into a wild boar. The spine of a fish turns into a centipede, of a human into a snake. When? If he does not bow down with his entire spine.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry. Some want to say, because it is for a short time; but some want to say because of cleanliness or danger. What is the difference between them? To separate lettuce leaves. For him who says, because it is for a short time, it is forbidden. For him who says, because of cleanliness or danger, it is permitted. Rav Jeremiah visited Rav Assi, who mixed a cup for him. He started inspecting it. His house companion said to him, look what he is doing! He told her, because he follows his teacher’s argument, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry. Some want to say, because it is for a short time; but some want to say because of cleanliness or danger. What is the difference between them? To separate lettuce leaves. For him who says, because it is for a short time, it is forbidden. For him who says, because of cleanliness or danger, it is permitted. Rav Jeremiah visited Rav Assi, who mixed a cup for him. He started inspecting it. His house companion said to him, look what he is doing! He told her, because he follows his teacher’s argument, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, a Pharisee sufferer from gonorrhea may not eat with a vulgar sufferer from gonorrhea, but the House of Hillel permit it.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? This one suffers from gonorrhea and that one suffers from gonorrhea. But what is the reason of the House of Shammai? If he gets used to him during the days of his impurity he will remain used to him in the days of his purity. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya commanded Rav, if you are able to eat profane food in purity the entire year long, eat it. But if not, eat it seven days per year.

They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, and also water you may acquire, etc. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans, פנקריסין and קובטיות, roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. What about roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav said: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking but one may use it for eruv tavšilin. How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise ply him with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When he saw that a superior came to his town, he sent him an honor gift. What did he say? If a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

Their cheese. Rebbi Jeremiah said, why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from forbidden animals. It was stated so: “There is nothing to worry if the Jew stands with the herd while the Gentile milks and brings to him.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering. Let him make cheese! Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison left between the holes. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net on top. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah the barrels of the Great Assembly were uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison.

Their cheese. Rebbi Jeremiah said, why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from forbidden animals. It was stated so: “There is nothing to worry if the Jew stands with the herd while the Gentile milks and brings to him.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering. Let him make cheese! Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison left between the holes. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net on top. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah the barrels of the Great Assembly were uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison.

Their oil. Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it. Daniel was careful not to defile himself by the king’s repast and the wine he drank. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but some say it in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For it they were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed for it.

Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Rebbi Simlai the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel accepted this and ate. Rav did not eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder. He answered him, when I still was there I knew who complained about it, Rebbi Simlai the Southerner. He told him, did he say it in the name of himself? No, in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate.

And about the rules for the land of Gentiles. But did not Rebbi Zeˋira bar Abinna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Joseph ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity of the land of Gentiles and of glass vessels; Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetaḥ decreed impurity of metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed about purity of hands. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi: so practice had been in their hands but they forgot it. The secondary [authorities] came and agreed with the intent of the first ones. To teach you that everything for which the Court made a real effort will in the end be confirmed for them as it was said to Moses on Sinai. This comes as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty matter for you, if it is an empty matter, it is from you since you do not exert yourselves for it. For it is your life. When is it your life? Any time you are exerting yourselves for it.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven,” etc. What profit does he have? Rebbi Abbahu said, for example these villagers who do not care.Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the vat was taken off. But if the vat was fixed, it is forbidden, since he will be afraid that his dye will have been absorbed and he will add water. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: The House of Hillel learn permitted work from forbidden work. Would it not be forbidden if he did it on the Sabbath? When he did similarly as long as it is still daytime it is permitted.

The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said a Gentile needs preparation, the other said, a Gentile does not need preparation. We did not know who said this and who said that. From that Rav refrained from coming before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who asked him, where have you been? He told him: a caravan passed by and I ate figs from them this implies that he said, a Gentile does not need preparation.

A student of [Rebbi] Simai went to Antipatris; they brought him Morocco-plums and he ate. A student of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi went there; they brought him Morocco-plums and he did not eat. He came and told it to his teacher who said to him, this one follows the argument of Rebbi Simai, as Rebbi Simai said, a Gentile does not need preparation. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The red grapes in a vineyard are forbidden. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The hard dates on palm leaves are permitted.