re

HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession.

HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession.

MISHNAH: An am haäreẓ who said to a ḥaver, buy for me a bunch of vegetables, buy for me a loaf, if he buys anonymously, he is free. If he says, this one is for me and that one is for my friend, if they became mixed up he has to tithe, even if there are a hundred.

If it is so, why was it said: One ploughs until the New Year? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibition of the first two terms. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state: No court may annul the words of another court unless it is greater in wisdom and numbers? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If they wanted to plough, they may plough. Then it should have been eliminated from the Mishnah! Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If they wanted to re-establish it, they may do so.

They wanted to say, according to him who said, there it is obligated, also here it is obligated; according to him who said, there it is exempt, also here it is exempt. Even according to him who says, there it is exempt, here it is obligated for when Israel entered they became obligated. It is written (2K. 14:25): “He reëstablished the borders of Israel from Lebo-Ḥamat to the sea of the Arabah, following the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had said through Jonah ben Amittai, the prophet from Gat-Ḥepher.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said that all that Joshua had conquered this one conquered. The other said, more than Joshua had conquered this one conquered. Rebbi Sidor stated, in support of Rebbi Mana: Few days only did Israel hold on to this land.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina ben Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, (in truth) [also] preparations for making food they permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina ben Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, (in truth) [also] preparations for making food they permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

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

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters yeast is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Jonah both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina Beroqa said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, they also permitted preparations for making food. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters yeast is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Jonah both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina Beroqa said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, they also permitted preparations for making food. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

MISHNAH: If somebody left the Sabbath domain for even one cubit he may not reenter. Rebbi Simeon says, Rebbi Eleazar says, for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter. If somebody was outside the Sabbath domain at nightfall for even one cubit he may not enter. Rebbi Simeon says, even fifteen cubits he may enter since the rope-spanners do not exhaust the measure because of errors.

MISHNAH: If somebody left the Sabbath domain for even one cubit he may not reenter. Rebbi Simeon says, Rebbi Eleazar says, for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter. If somebody was outside the Sabbath domain at nightfall for even one cubit he may not enter. Rebbi Simeon says, even fifteen cubits he may enter since the rope-spanners do not exhaust the measure because of errors.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left the Sabbath domain,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena and Rav Ḥasdai both are saying, he said only “two”. Therefore could he enter with two and a little bit? Since this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, as Rebbi Eleazar said, “for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter.” Rebbi Yose told him, one says at the end, “three he may not re-enter,” therefore three minus a little bit he may re-enter. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Eleazar said is about one who left, therefore not about one who stayed overnight. It was found stated, one is like the other. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Simeon said is about one who stayed overnight, therefore not about one who left. It was found stated, one is like the other.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left the Sabbath domain,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena and Rav Ḥasdai both are saying, he said only “two”. Therefore could he enter with two and a little bit? Since this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, as Rebbi Eleazar said, “for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter.” Rebbi Yose told him, one says at the end, “three he may not re-enter,” therefore three minus a little bit he may re-enter. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Eleazar said is about one who left, therefore not about one who stayed overnight. It was found stated, one is like the other. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Simeon said is about one who stayed overnight, therefore not about one who left. It was found stated, one is like the other.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left the Sabbath domain,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena and Rav Ḥasdai both are saying, he said only “two”. Therefore could he enter with two and a little bit? Since this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, as Rebbi Eleazar said, “for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter.” Rebbi Yose told him, one says at the end, “three he may not re-enter,” therefore three minus a little bit he may re-enter. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Eleazar said is about one who left, therefore not about one who stayed overnight. It was found stated, one is like the other. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Simeon said is about one who stayed overnight, therefore not about one who left. It was found stated, one is like the other.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left the Sabbath domain,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena and Rav Ḥasdai both are saying, he said only “two”. Therefore could he enter with two and a little bit? Since this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, as Rebbi Eleazar said, “for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter.” Rebbi Yose told him, one says at the end, “three he may not re-enter,” therefore three minus a little bit he may re-enter. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Eleazar said is about one who left, therefore not about one who stayed overnight. It was found stated, one is like the other. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Simeon said is about one who stayed overnight, therefore not about one who left. It was found stated, one is like the other.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Ze`ira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine is at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, also preparations for making food are permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Ze`ira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine is at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, also preparations for making food are permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, rolls up, and recites the benediction. There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. Rebbi Ze`ira, Abba bar Jeremiah, Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel, Practice follows him who said, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. And what is the reason? When he opened it, the entire people stood up. What is written afterwards? Ezra praised the Eternal, the Great God. In what did he declare Him great? Rebbi Giddul said, by the explicit Name. Rav Mattanah said, he declared Him great by the benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why are they called the men of the Great Assembly? Because they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory. Rebbi Phineas said, Moses instituted the prayer formula, the God, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome. Jeremiah said, the Great and Strong God; he did not mention “the Awesome”. Why is He strong? He is appropriately called strong since He sees the destruction of His Temple and is silent. Why did he not mention “Awesome”? Awesome is only the Temple, as it is written, God Awesome in Your Sanctuary. Daniel said the Great and Awesome God. Why did he not mention “the Strong”? His sons are delivered to iron collars; where is His strength? But why does he say, Awesome? He is appropriately called awesome by the awesome deeds he made for us in the fiery oven. But when the men of the Great Assembly arose they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory: But now, our God, the Power, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome, keeper of Covenant and grace, may it not be little in Your eyes, etc. But does flesh and blood have the power to state limits in these matters? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, the prophets know that their God is truthful and they do not flatter him.

There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, rolls up, and recites the benediction. There are Tannaim who state, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. Rebbi Ze`ira, Abba bar Jeremiah, Rav Mattanah in the name of Samuel, Practice follows him who said, he opens, looks, and recites the benediction. And what is the reason? When he opened it, the entire people stood up. What is written afterwards? Ezra praised the Eternal, the Great God. In what did he declare Him great? Rebbi Giddul said, by the explicit Name. Rav Mattanah said, he declared Him great by the benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why are they called the men of the Great Assembly? Because they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory. Rebbi Phineas said, Moses instituted the prayer formula, the God, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome. Jeremiah said, the Great and Strong God; he did not mention “the Awesome”. Why is He strong? He is appropriately called strong since He sees the destruction of His Temple and is silent. Why did he not mention “Awesome”? Awesome is only the Temple, as it is written, God Awesome in Your Sanctuary. Daniel said the Great and Awesome God. Why did he not mention “the Strong”? His sons are delivered to iron collars; where is His strength? But why does he say, Awesome? He is appropriately called awesome by the awesome deeds he made for us in the fiery oven. But when the men of the Great Assembly arose they re-instituted the grandeur to its old glory: But now, our God, the Power, the Great, the Strong, and the Awesome, keeper of Covenant and grace, may it not be little in Your eyes, etc. But does flesh and blood have the power to state limits in these matters? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, the prophets know that their God is truthful and they do not flatter him.

“One does not recite benedictions for mourners or bridegrooms.” It was stated, the marriage benedictions are said all seven days. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that one re-enacts the marriage all seven days. Rebbi Yose said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, the benedictions for mourners are said all seven days? Can you say that one buries the dead all seven days? How is that? Since here he enjoys with him, so there he consoles with him. As here one remembers, so there one remembers.

It is written: “And David sang this elegy”, etc., “and said: To teach the people of Judah archery.” Is it reasonable that he had to teach the people of Judah, who was he? But David said, when the just have disappeared, the haters come and attack Israel. “Is that not written in the book Yashar?” Two Amoraïm. One says, that is the book of Genesis. But the other said, that is the fifth of Numbers. The one who said, this is the book of Genesis, is understandable. But the one who said, that is the fifth of Numbers, what war is reported there? “The Children of Israel travelled from the springs of Bene-Ya‘aqon to Mosera; there Aaron died.” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the Cohen ascended Mount Hor and died there.” But when Aaron died and the clouds of glory disappeared, the Canaanites desired to attack Israel. That is what is written: “The Canaanite, the king of Arad, dweller in the Southland, heard that Israel came by the way of the scouts.” What is “the way of the scouts”? He heard that Aaron died, the great scout, who did scout the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and travelled eight stations backward. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed eight families from them. They also killed four of their families. That is what is written: “The Amramite, the Yiṣharite, the Ḥebronite, the Uzielite.” When were they re-established? In David’s time. That is what is written: “In his days, the just will blossom”. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not perform kindness for that just man. They went and organized a eulogy and performed kindness for that just man. The verse considers it as if he died and was buried there where they performed kindness for that just man.

It was stated: The marriage benedictions are said all seven days. [Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that one re-enacts the marriage all seven days.] Rebbi Yose said to him, but did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: The benedictions of mourners are said all seven days. Can you say that one buries the dead all seven days? How is that? Since here he consoles with him, so there he enjoys with him; as here one remembers, so there one remembers.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare? Rebbi Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread) was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare? Rebbi Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread) was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.

MISHNAH: If somebody made a vow of nazir while he was in a cemetery, even if he stayed there for thirty days, they are not counted and he does not bring a sacrifice for impurity. If he left and re-entered, they are counted and he has to bring a sacrifice for impurity. Rebbi Eliezer said, not on that day, since it is said: “The earlier days fall away,” until he has earlier days.

If he left and re-entered, Rebbi Ṭarphon frees him from prosecution, Rebbi Aqiba declares him guilty. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, what did this one add to his desecration? Rebbi Aqiba said, as long as he was there, he was defiling himself by the impurity of seven days. When he left, he was defiling himself by the impurity of evening. When he re-entered, defiling himself by the impurity of (evening). Rebbi Ṭarphon told him, Aqiba! Any who leaves you is as if he left his life.

If he left and re-entered, Rebbi Ṭarphon frees him from prosecution, Rebbi Aqiba declares him guilty. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, what did this one add to his desecration? Rebbi Aqiba said, as long as he was there, he was defiling himself by the impurity of seven days. When he left, he was defiling himself by the impurity of evening. When he re-entered, defiling himself by the impurity of (evening). Rebbi Ṭarphon told him, Aqiba! Any who leaves you is as if he left his life.

It is written, do not make idols for yourselves, statue and stele you shall not erect for yourselves. Is not making the same as erecting? Rebbi Hila said, making is from new; erecting, if it falls down one shall not re-erect it. It is written, you shall tear down their altars and break their steles. From where to apply one to the other? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, it was said to refer to both sides; either breaking, or cutting down, or tearing down for each of them.

R. Zera sad to R. Abbahu, Did R. Yohanan really say that? Did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan that ‘the law of the ten plants, the aravah ... and the water libation were given to Moses on Mount Sinai? He was silent for a while (Daniel 4:16), and then he answered: They were forgotten and the prophets re-instituted them.

It is said above, "from the first day of the month of Nisan", etc.—why from the first? Why does he not say from the second day of Nisan, since the first day of Nisan is a holiday, on which mourning is anyhow forbidden? Said Raba: The first of Nisan is mentioned in order that the prohibition may include also the preceding day. But could not this be inferred from the fact that the day following is New Moon? The New Moon is of biblical origin, and biblical laws require no reënforcement, for it is stated in a Baraita: The prohibition (of fasting and mourning) on the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts includes also, in each case, the preceding as well as the following day; as regards, however, the Sabbaths and holidays, fasting on these days is forbidden, but is permitted on the days preceding or following them. Why is such a difference made between the two? Because these (Sabbaths and holidays) are biblical laws, which need no reënforcement, while the others are soferic laws, which need reënforcement.

It is said above, "from the first day of the month of Nisan", etc.—why from the first? Why does he not say from the second day of Nisan, since the first day of Nisan is a holiday, on which mourning is anyhow forbidden? Said Raba: The first of Nisan is mentioned in order that the prohibition may include also the preceding day. But could not this be inferred from the fact that the day following is New Moon? The New Moon is of biblical origin, and biblical laws require no reënforcement, for it is stated in a Baraita: The prohibition (of fasting and mourning) on the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts includes also, in each case, the preceding as well as the following day; as regards, however, the Sabbaths and holidays, fasting on these days is forbidden, but is permitted on the days preceding or following them. Why is such a difference made between the two? Because these (Sabbaths and holidays) are biblical laws, which need no reënforcement, while the others are soferic laws, which need reënforcement.

It is said above, "from the first day of the month of Nisan", etc.—why from the first? Why does he not say from the second day of Nisan, since the first day of Nisan is a holiday, on which mourning is anyhow forbidden? Said Raba: The first of Nisan is mentioned in order that the prohibition may include also the preceding day. But could not this be inferred from the fact that the day following is New Moon? The New Moon is of biblical origin, and biblical laws require no reënforcement, for it is stated in a Baraita: The prohibition (of fasting and mourning) on the days recorded in the Scroll of Fasts includes also, in each case, the preceding as well as the following day; as regards, however, the Sabbaths and holidays, fasting on these days is forbidden, but is permitted on the days preceding or following them. Why is such a difference made between the two? Because these (Sabbaths and holidays) are biblical laws, which need no reënforcement, while the others are soferic laws, which need reënforcement.

R. Joseph said: The study of the Torah is superior to the saving of life. For at first Mordecai was counted next after four, but afterwards next after five. At first it is written, “Who came with Zerubabel: Yeshua, Nehemiah, Serahyah, Re’elayah, Mordecai, Bilshan” (Ezra 2:2) and subsequently it is written, Who came with Zerubabel, Yeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan” (Nehemiah 7:3).

They asked Ben Zoma, In re puellae gravidae what about the high priest? Shall we take into consideration that which was discussed by Samuel? For Samuel said,

But contrast that with a baraisa, [If he left] intentionally he is executed, [if he left] inadvertently he is [re-]exiled. It is not a difficulty, this [baraisa that says only an intentional leaving is penalized] is like the opinion that the Torah sometimes speaks in the vernacular, while this [baraisa that says only an inadvertent leaving is also penalized] is like the opinion that the Torah does not speak in the vernacular.

Abaye says, It is logical according to the opinion that the Torah speaks in the vernacular, so that his end should not be more stringent then his beginning. Just like in the beginning [when he murdered] if it was intentional he is executed and if it was inadvertent he is exiled, so too his end [when he leaves the city of refuge] if it was intentional he should be executed and if it was inadvertent he should be [re-]exiled.