rebbi

[Explanation: The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta were walking in the valley of Arbela before morning and saw “the morning hind” that started radiating. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: Great man, so will be the deliverance of Israel; it starts out very small and grows and radiates as it goes on. What is the reason When heshall dwell in darkness, the Eternal is my light. So also at the start Mordocai was sitting at the king’s gate.” After that Mordocai returned to the king’s gate. After that Haman took the garment and the horse. After that: Mordocai left the king’s presence in royal garb. After that: The Jews had light and joy.]

[Explanation: The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta were walking in the valley of Arbela before morning and saw “the morning hind” that started radiating. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: Great man, so will be the deliverance of Israel; it starts out very small and grows and radiates as it goes on. What is the reason When heshall dwell in darkness, the Eternal is my light. So also at the start Mordocai was sitting at the king’s gate.” After that Mordocai returned to the king’s gate. After that Haman took the garment and the horse. After that: Mordocai left the king’s presence in royal garb. After that: The Jews had light and joy.]

It was stated: A person sleeping needs immersion, being drowsy needs sanctification of hands and legs. Does a person sleeping need immersion? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard except for the kings of the Davidic dynasty;” and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even for the kings of the Davidic dynasty there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that somebody was supporting himself on a wall and sleeping. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated in prayer.

It was stated: A person sleeping needs immersion, being drowsy needs sanctification of hands and legs. Does a person sleeping need immersion? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard except for the kings of the Davidic dynasty;” and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even for the kings of the Davidic dynasty there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that somebody was supporting himself on a wall and sleeping. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated in prayer.

It was stated: A person sleeping needs immersion, being drowsy needs sanctification of hands and legs. Does a person sleeping need immersion? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard except for the kings of the Davidic dynasty;” and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even for the kings of the Davidic dynasty there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that somebody was supporting himself on a wall and sleeping. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated in prayer.

It was stated: A person sleeping needs immersion, being drowsy needs sanctification of hands and legs. Does a person sleeping need immersion? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard except for the kings of the Davidic dynasty;” and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even for the kings of the Davidic dynasty there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that somebody was supporting himself on a wall and sleeping. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated in prayer.

They asked Ben Zoma, where does this immersion come from? He said to them, since when he enters the holy from the holy he needs immersion, from profane to holy so much more? It is not necessary, but from holy to holy he should not need immersion, from profane to holy he should need immersion. Rebbi Shammai said, it is the following. Since from holy to holy where he is not subject to extirpation he needs immersion, from profane to holy where he is subject to extirpation not so much more that he should need immersion? And even from holy to holy he should be subject to extirpation, following what we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself,or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” What is the duration of prostration? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, [as long as] they bowed down with their faces on the floor and prostrated themselves. Rebbi Abbahu adds, thanking the Eternal for He is good, Rebbi Mana adds, His grace is forever.

They asked Ben Zoma, where does this immersion come from? He said to them, since when he enters the holy from the holy he needs immersion, from profane to holy so much more? It is not necessary, but from holy to holy he should not need immersion, from profane to holy he should need immersion. Rebbi Shammai said, it is the following. Since from holy to holy where he is not subject to extirpation he needs immersion, from profane to holy where he is subject to extirpation not so much more that he should need immersion? And even from holy to holy he should be subject to extirpation, following what we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself,or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” What is the duration of prostration? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, [as long as] they bowed down with their faces on the floor and prostrated themselves. Rebbi Abbahu adds, thanking the Eternal for He is good, Rebbi Mana adds, His grace is forever.

They asked Ben Zoma, where does this immersion come from? He said to them, since when he enters the holy from the holy he needs immersion, from profane to holy so much more? It is not necessary, but from holy to holy he should not need immersion, from profane to holy he should need immersion. Rebbi Shammai said, it is the following. Since from holy to holy where he is not subject to extirpation he needs immersion, from profane to holy where he is subject to extirpation not so much more that he should need immersion? And even from holy to holy he should be subject to extirpation, following what we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself,or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” What is the duration of prostration? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, [as long as] they bowed down with their faces on the floor and prostrated themselves. Rebbi Abbahu adds, thanking the Eternal for He is good, Rebbi Mana adds, His grace is forever.

They asked Ben Zoma, where does this immersion come from? He said to them, since when he enters the holy from the holy he needs immersion, from profane to holy so much more? It is not necessary, but from holy to holy he should not need immersion, from profane to holy he should need immersion. Rebbi Shammai said, it is the following. Since from holy to holy where he is not subject to extirpation he needs immersion, from profane to holy where he is subject to extirpation not so much more that he should need immersion? And even from holy to holy he should be subject to extirpation, following what we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself,or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” What is the duration of prostration? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, [as long as] they bowed down with their faces on the floor and prostrated themselves. Rebbi Abbahu adds, thanking the Eternal for He is good, Rebbi Mana adds, His grace is forever.

They asked Ben Zoma, where does this immersion come from? He said to them, since when he enters the holy from the holy he needs immersion, from profane to holy so much more? It is not necessary, but from holy to holy he should not need immersion, from profane to holy he should need immersion. Rebbi Shammai said, it is the following. Since from holy to holy where he is not subject to extirpation he needs immersion, from profane to holy where he is subject to extirpation not so much more that he should need immersion? And even from holy to holy he should be subject to extirpation, following what we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself,or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” What is the duration of prostration? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, [as long as] they bowed down with their faces on the floor and prostrated themselves. Rebbi Abbahu adds, thanking the Eternal for He is good, Rebbi Mana adds, His grace is forever.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. There, we have stated: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. There, we have stated: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. There, we have stated: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. There, we have stated: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. There, we have stated: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. There, we have stated: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Until he cut two or most of two. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “[they brought him the daily sacrifice;] he cut it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Until he cut two or most of two. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “[they brought him the daily sacrifice;] he cut it.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Until he cut two or most of two. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “[they brought him the daily sacrifice;] he cut it.”

It is written, qeresò from the North comes into it. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. One said, a butcher; but the other said, a remover. He who said, a butcher, from this, “they brought him the daily sacrifice; he cut it.” He who said, a remover, an exiler, from loam I also was cut off.

It is written, qeresò from the North comes into it. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. One said, a butcher; but the other said, a remover. He who said, a butcher, from this, “they brought him the daily sacrifice; he cut it.” He who said, a remover, an exiler, from loam I also was cut off.

HALAKHAH: It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about wood in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which in the morning is written only once. Then even before its blood? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, preceded action for it. It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which only [one] in the morning is written. Where do we hold? If about limbs, are they not like wood? But we are holding, even for its blood. It is written about wood in the morning, in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning, and I do not know which of the two is preceding. Which one is enabling what? Wood enables the incense; the wood shall precede the incense. Come and see, wood precedes the blood and blood precedes incense, and you are saying so? Rebbi Hila said, no. Since I could not prove by a logical argument that wood enables the incense, you needed that baraita. They wanted to say, what enables the incense? Charcoal. Rebbi Eleazar said, smoke-creating herb.

HALAKHAH: It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about wood in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which in the morning is written only once. Then even before its blood? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, preceded action for it. It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which only [one] in the morning is written. Where do we hold? If about limbs, are they not like wood? But we are holding, even for its blood. It is written about wood in the morning, in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning, and I do not know which of the two is preceding. Which one is enabling what? Wood enables the incense; the wood shall precede the incense. Come and see, wood precedes the blood and blood precedes incense, and you are saying so? Rebbi Hila said, no. Since I could not prove by a logical argument that wood enables the incense, you needed that baraita. They wanted to say, what enables the incense? Charcoal. Rebbi Eleazar said, smoke-creating herb.

HALAKHAH: It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about wood in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which in the morning is written only once. Then even before its blood? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, preceded action for it. It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which only [one] in the morning is written. Where do we hold? If about limbs, are they not like wood? But we are holding, even for its blood. It is written about wood in the morning, in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning, and I do not know which of the two is preceding. Which one is enabling what? Wood enables the incense; the wood shall precede the incense. Come and see, wood precedes the blood and blood precedes incense, and you are saying so? Rebbi Hila said, no. Since I could not prove by a logical argument that wood enables the incense, you needed that baraita. They wanted to say, what enables the incense? Charcoal. Rebbi Eleazar said, smoke-creating herb.

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

MISHNAH: They brought him to the Parwa house, which was in the sacred domain. They spread a byssus sheet between him and the people; he sanctified hands and legs and undressed; Rebbi Meïr says, he undressed and sanctified hands and legs. He stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. In the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth twelve mina, and in the evening Indian of 800 denar, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth eighteen mina and in the evening of twelve mina, all together thirty mina. This he takes from Temple property; if he wants to add, he adds from his own.

MISHNAH: They brought him to the Parwa house, which was in the sacred domain. They spread a byssus sheet between him and the people; he sanctified hands and legs and undressed; Rebbi Meïr says, he undressed and sanctified hands and legs. He stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. In the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth twelve mina, and in the evening Indian of 800 denar, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth eighteen mina and in the evening of twelve mina, all together thirty mina. This he takes from Temple property; if he wants to add, he adds from his own.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing. Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing. Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing. Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing. Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing. Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified.

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

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

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

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

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

כדי that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study] on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new. If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them, even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement.

כדי that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study] on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new. If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them, even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement.

כדי that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study] on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new. If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them, even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement.

כדי that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study] on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new. If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them, even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement.

כדי that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study] on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new. If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them, even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement.

כדי that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study] on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new. If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them, even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement.

כדי that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study] on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new. If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them, even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement.

כדי that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study] on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new. If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them, even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

”You find that by five immersions and ten sanctifications he immerses and sanctifies himself on that day. From where that there are two sanctifications for every immersion? The verse says, and he undressed, and he washed, and he washed, (and he undressed) [and he dressed]. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, it is an argument de minore ad majus. Since at a place where he does not need immersion he needs sanctification of hands and legs, here where he needs immersion not so much more that he should need sanctification of hands and legs? Take away your argument. Since there it is once for the entire day, also here it would be once for the entire day. The verse says, and he shall take off the linen garments, why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he took off what he was not wearing? Then why does it say, which he wore? It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs.” Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the opposite way. It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs.”

”You find that by five immersions and ten sanctifications he immerses and sanctifies himself on that day. From where that there are two sanctifications for every immersion? The verse says, and he undressed, and he washed, and he washed, (and he undressed) [and he dressed]. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, it is an argument de minore ad majus. Since at a place where he does not need immersion he needs sanctification of hands and legs, here where he needs immersion not so much more that he should need sanctification of hands and legs? Take away your argument. Since there it is once for the entire day, also here it would be once for the entire day. The verse says, and he shall take off the linen garments, why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he took off what he was not wearing? Then why does it say, which he wore? It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs.” Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the opposite way. It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs.”

”You find that by five immersions and ten sanctifications he immerses and sanctifies himself on that day. From where that there are two sanctifications for every immersion? The verse says, and he undressed, and he washed, and he washed, (and he undressed) [and he dressed]. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, it is an argument de minore ad majus. Since at a place where he does not need immersion he needs sanctification of hands and legs, here where he needs immersion not so much more that he should need sanctification of hands and legs? Take away your argument. Since there it is once for the entire day, also here it would be once for the entire day. The verse says, and he shall take off the linen garments, why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he took off what he was not wearing? Then why does it say, which he wore? It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs.” Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the opposite way. It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs.”

But is not second quality of Pelusian better than first Indian? A formulation which is an exaggeration. There, we have stated: “Nothing is better than the best of first quality. [Second tier of the first and first tier of the second are equal.]” But is not the second tier of first quality better than the first of second quality? A formulation which is an exaggeration. What about it? Rebbi Nahman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the morning, linen is written four times. In the afternoon, linen is written.

But is not second quality of Pelusian better than first Indian? A formulation which is an exaggeration. There, we have stated: “Nothing is better than the best of first quality. [Second tier of the first and first tier of the second are equal.]” But is not the second tier of first quality better than the first of second quality? A formulation which is an exaggeration. What about it? Rebbi Nahman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the morning, linen is written four times. In the afternoon, linen is written.

It happened that Rebbi Ismael ben Phiabi wore coats worth 100 mina, he went up and sacrificed on the altar. It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Hartom wore coats worth 20’000, he went up and sacrificed on the altar, but his brothers the Cohanim took him down since he was seen naked under it. What did he do? He drenched it with water and circled the altar seven times.

It happened that Rebbi Ismael ben Phiabi wore coats worth 100 mina, he went up and sacrificed on the altar. It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Hartom wore coats worth 20’000, he went up and sacrificed on the altar, but his brothers the Cohanim took him down since he was seen naked under it. What did he do? He drenched it with water and circled the altar seven times.

HALAKHAH: What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices? From the Northern wall of the altar to the Northern wall of the courtyard the entire width of the altar, i. e., 32 cubits, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, from before the House of Knives up to between the Hall and the altar, to the Eastern wall of the courtyard. Rebbi adds: the place where Cohanim can enter, eleven cubits, and the place where Israel can enter, eleven cubits, from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.

HALAKHAH: What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices? From the Northern wall of the altar to the Northern wall of the courtyard the entire width of the altar, i. e., 32 cubits, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, from before the House of Knives up to between the Hall and the altar, to the Eastern wall of the courtyard. Rebbi adds: the place where Cohanim can enter, eleven cubits, and the place where Israel can enter, eleven cubits, from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.

HALAKHAH: What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices? From the Northern wall of the altar to the Northern wall of the courtyard the entire width of the altar, i. e., 32 cubits, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, from before the House of Knives up to between the Hall and the altar, to the Eastern wall of the courtyard. Rebbi adds: the place where Cohanim can enter, eleven cubits, and the place where Israel can enter, eleven cubits, from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.

HALAKHAH: What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices? From the Northern wall of the altar to the Northern wall of the courtyard the entire width of the altar, i. e., 32 cubits, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, from before the House of Knives up to between the Hall and the altar, to the Eastern wall of the courtyard. Rebbi adds: the place where Cohanim can enter, eleven cubits, and the place where Israel can enter, eleven cubits, from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the first time he says “please Hashem”, the second time he says, “please Bashem”

[It was stated: “How does he confess? “I acted criminally, I rebelled, I sinned;’ and it says, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, criminal acts are intentional crimes, offenses are rebellions, sins are inadvertent actions. After he confesses about criminal acts he turns around and confesses about inadvertent acts? But he confesses as follows: Please Hashem, I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You, I and my house (etc..) [and the sons of Aaron. As is written in the Torah of Moses as follows, for on that day he shall, etc. They, answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”.] And so we find that confessors do confess. David said, we and our fathers sinned, we acted criminally and we led to bad behavior. His son Solomon said, [we sinned,] we acted criminally, behaved badly. Daniel said, we sinned, we actedcriminally, we led to bad behavior, and we rebelled. Also he was confessing thus: I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You. What means this which Moses said, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc.? But since he confesses to criminal rebellious acts, it is as if they were inadvertent sins before Him.”

Ten times did the High Priest pronounce the Name on the Day of Atonement: Six times with the bull, and three with the he-goat, and once with the lots. Those near were falling on their faces, those farther away were saying “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”. These and those did not move away from there before they forgot it. This is My Name forever, “this is My Name to conceal.” In earlier times he was saying it aloud. Since the lawless increased, he said it softly. Rebbi Tarphon said, I was standing in a row with my brothers the Cohanim and turned my ear towards the High Priest, when I heard him mixing it with the song of the Cohanim. In earlier times it was given to everybody. Since the lawless increased, it was given only to qualified ones.

Samuel was passing by when he heard a Persian cursing his son by it; he died. He said, a man is gone and [he] who heard, heard. Rebbi Iniany bar Sosay went up to Rebbi Ḥanina in Sepphoris. He said, come and I shall transmit it to you. His son went under the couch. He sneezed and he heard the sound. He said, why are you acting together in trickery, go! Neither for you nor for him. A physician in Sepphoris said to Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama, come and I shall transmit it to you. He told him, I am unable. He asked him, why? He said to him, because I am eating tithe, and anybody conversant with it cannot eat anything from any person.

Samuel was passing by when he heard a Persian cursing his son by it; he died. He said, a man is gone and [he] who heard, heard. Rebbi Iniany bar Sosay went up to Rebbi Ḥanina in Sepphoris. He said, come and I shall transmit it to you. His son went under the couch. He sneezed and he heard the sound. He said, why are you acting together in trickery, go! Neither for you nor for him. A physician in Sepphoris said to Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama, come and I shall transmit it to you. He told him, I am unable. He asked him, why? He said to him, because I am eating tithe, and anybody conversant with it cannot eat anything from any person.

Samuel was passing by when he heard a Persian cursing his son by it; he died. He said, a man is gone and [he] who heard, heard. Rebbi Iniany bar Sosay went up to Rebbi Ḥanina in Sepphoris. He said, come and I shall transmit it to you. His son went under the couch. He sneezed and he heard the sound. He said, why are you acting together in trickery, go! Neither for you nor for him. A physician in Sepphoris said to Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama, come and I shall transmit it to you. He told him, I am unable. He asked him, why? He said to him, because I am eating tithe, and anybody conversant with it cannot eat anything from any person.

“And an urn was there with two lots in it. They were of boxwood. What is “of boxwood”? Πύξινον. Rebbi Samuel, Rav’s brother, asked: If they were lost, must the replacement be made from gold? It shall come following “one increases in holiness but does not decrease.”

Could they make spouts one on top of the other? Rebbi Jonah said, for the maximum day of the daily sacrifice. The top because of a vessel reduced in its majority. But is the lower not in the category of volume inside a vessel? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates. Rebbi Simeon ben Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The Sea was a place of immersion of the Cohanim, and the Sea for the Cohanim to wash in it. But was it not a vessel? A water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates.

Could they make spouts one on top of the other? Rebbi Jonah said, for the maximum day of the daily sacrifice. The top because of a vessel reduced in its majority. But is the lower not in the category of volume inside a vessel? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates. Rebbi Simeon ben Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The Sea was a place of immersion of the Cohanim, and the Sea for the Cohanim to wash in it. But was it not a vessel? A water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates.

Could they make spouts one on top of the other? Rebbi Jonah said, for the maximum day of the daily sacrifice. The top because of a vessel reduced in its majority. But is the lower not in the category of volume inside a vessel? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates. Rebbi Simeon ben Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The Sea was a place of immersion of the Cohanim, and the Sea for the Cohanim to wash in it. But was it not a vessel? A water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates.