rebbi

HALAKHAH: 4. If one wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, with drinks or fruit juice on a board, he is not liable unless he wrote with permanent material on permanent material. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. But did we not state, “if they cannot be read together, he is not liable”? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, בסררה.

HALAKHAH: 4. If one wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, with drinks or fruit juice on a board, he is not liable unless he wrote with permanent material on permanent material. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. But did we not state, “if they cannot be read together, he is not liable”? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, בסררה.

HALAKHAH: 4. If one wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, with drinks or fruit juice on a board, he is not liable unless he wrote with permanent material on permanent material. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. But did we not state, “if they cannot be read together, he is not liable”? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, בסררה.

HALAKHAH: 4. If one wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, with drinks or fruit juice on a board, he is not liable unless he wrote with permanent material on permanent material. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. But did we not state, “if they cannot be read together, he is not liable”? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, בסררה.

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid). “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid). “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid). “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid). “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

MISHNAH: If he wrote with fluid of drinks, with fruit juice, with road dust, with scribe’s dust, or with anything which is not permanent, he is not liable. With the back of his hand, with his foot, with his mouth, with his elbow; if he wrote one letter adjacent to existing writing, wrote over existing writing, intended to write ח and wrote זז, one on the ground and one on a beam, on two walls of a house or two leaves of a wooden tablet if they cannot be read together, he is not liable. If he wrote one letter as abbreviation, Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra declares liable but the Sages declare not liable.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

HALAKHAH: 5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

What is Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra’s reason? From one letter one may infer several letters.

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves three threads to start or one on the weave is liable. But the Sages say, whether at the beginning or at the end its measure is two threads.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

HALAKHAH: 2. “The cross pieces,” the cross pieces. “The thrums,” καίρωμα. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq, on Passover one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a robbed mazzah? He told them, there in itself it is sinful, but here he committed a sin. Would we say, if one brought a mazzah from a private to the public domain that he could not fulfill his obligation on Passover?

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq, on Passover one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a robbed mazzah? He told them, there in itself it is sinful, but here he committed a sin. Would we say, if one brought a mazzah from a private to the public domain that he could not fulfill his obligation on Passover?

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq, on Passover one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a robbed mazzah? He told them, there in itself it is sinful, but here he committed a sin. Would we say, if one brought a mazzah from a private to the public domain that he could not fulfill his obligation on Passover?

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable, but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. The principle: In every case where it still needs catching, he is not liable, if it does not need catching he is liable.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable, but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. The principle: In every case where it still needs catching, he is not liable, if it does not need catching he is liable.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

“One may slaughter from containers, one may not slaughter from fishermen’s nets or from traps.” Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Immi: a net of warp. Samuel [said], one may catch with a barrel. Rav said, the sluice of a water canal is permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, those between the plates.

“One may slaughter from containers, one may not slaughter from fishermen’s nets or from traps.” Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Immi: a net of warp. Samuel [said], one may catch with a barrel. Rav said, the sluice of a water canal is permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, those between the plates.

“One may slaughter from containers, one may not slaughter from fishermen’s nets or from traps.” Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Immi: a net of warp. Samuel [said], one may catch with a barrel. Rav said, the sluice of a water canal is permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, those between the plates.

MISHNAH: If a deer enters a house, he who locked the house while it was there is liable. If two together locked, they are not liable. If one alone could not have locked it and two did it, they are liable; but Rebbi Simeon holds them not liable.

HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: 7. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one feed them? It comes following what we have stated there: “one does not provide water to bees and to pigeons in a dovecot,” for one cannot provide for something which is not prepared. And here it is the same.

Rebbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one tie it with a rope? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.

Rebbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one tie it with a rope? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.

Rebbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one tie it with a rope? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.

Rebbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one tie it with a rope? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.

Rebbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one tie it with a rope? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.