rebbi

“If it was laid on the holiday it may be eaten on the Sabbath, on the Sabbath it may be eaten on the holiday. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, this is the disagreement. The house of Shammai say that it may be eaten, but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten.” Rebbi Ḥanina instructed the Sepphoreans about spontaneous growth of mustard and about the egg following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan came and preached to them following the rabbis here and the rabbis there. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Joṣadaq: Because of these two things did Rebbi Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, why did you bring me this old man, what I am permitting he prohibits, what I am prohibiting he permits. Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Yasa and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained.

“If it was laid on the holiday it may be eaten on the Sabbath, on the Sabbath it may be eaten on the holiday. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, this is the disagreement. The house of Shammai say that it may be eaten, but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten.” Rebbi Ḥanina instructed the Sepphoreans about spontaneous growth of mustard and about the egg following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan came and preached to them following the rabbis here and the rabbis there. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Joṣadaq: Because of these two things did Rebbi Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, why did you bring me this old man, what I am permitting he prohibits, what I am prohibiting he permits. Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Yasa and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

HALAKHAH: Jehudah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya went out. They asked him, what are the rules for a ladder to the upper floor? He told them, it is permitted. When he returned to his father, he asked him, what case came to your hands? He said, I permitted them the ladder to the upper floor. He appointed his Tanna before him, who stated, “when was this said, about a ladder for a dovecote. But a ladder for the upper floor is forbidden.” What is the difference between a ladder for a dovecote and a ladder for the upper floor? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a ladder for a dovecote if he had used it the day before for work it would be weak; a ladder for the upper floor may be used for work the day before. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on the ladder for a dovecote he may stand and use it for his purpose; on the ladder for the upper floor he may not stand and use it for his purpose. A ladder for a dovecote even if it is used to climb to the upper floor; a ladder for the upper floor even if it used to climb to the dovecote.

HALAKHAH: Jehudah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya went out. They asked him, what are the rules for a ladder to the upper floor? He told them, it is permitted. When he returned to his father, he asked him, what case came to your hands? He said, I permitted them the ladder to the upper floor. He appointed his Tanna before him, who stated, “when was this said, about a ladder for a dovecote. But a ladder for the upper floor is forbidden.” What is the difference between a ladder for a dovecote and a ladder for the upper floor? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a ladder for a dovecote if he had used it the day before for work it would be weak; a ladder for the upper floor may be used for work the day before. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on the ladder for a dovecote he may stand and use it for his purpose; on the ladder for the upper floor he may not stand and use it for his purpose. A ladder for a dovecote even if it is used to climb to the upper floor; a ladder for the upper floor even if it used to climb to the dovecote.

HALAKHAH: Jehudah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya went out. They asked him, what are the rules for a ladder to the upper floor? He told them, it is permitted. When he returned to his father, he asked him, what case came to your hands? He said, I permitted them the ladder to the upper floor. He appointed his Tanna before him, who stated, “when was this said, about a ladder for a dovecote. But a ladder for the upper floor is forbidden.” What is the difference between a ladder for a dovecote and a ladder for the upper floor? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a ladder for a dovecote if he had used it the day before for work it would be weak; a ladder for the upper floor may be used for work the day before. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on the ladder for a dovecote he may stand and use it for his purpose; on the ladder for the upper floor he may not stand and use it for his purpose. A ladder for a dovecote even if it is used to climb to the upper floor; a ladder for the upper floor even if it used to climb to the dovecote.

HALAKHAH: Jehudah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya went out. They asked him, what are the rules for a ladder to the upper floor? He told them, it is permitted. When he returned to his father, he asked him, what case came to your hands? He said, I permitted them the ladder to the upper floor. He appointed his Tanna before him, who stated, “when was this said, about a ladder for a dovecote. But a ladder for the upper floor is forbidden.” What is the difference between a ladder for a dovecote and a ladder for the upper floor? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a ladder for a dovecote if he had used it the day before for work it would be weak; a ladder for the upper floor may be used for work the day before. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on the ladder for a dovecote he may stand and use it for his purpose; on the ladder for the upper floor he may not stand and use it for his purpose. A ladder for a dovecote even if it is used to climb to the upper floor; a ladder for the upper floor even if it used to climb to the dovecote.

“The House of Shammai say, one may not take unless one had moved when it was still daylight.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted, as we have stated there: “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, a person stands near the drying figs Friday afternoon in a Sabbatical year and says, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” Is Rebbi Eliezer not a Shammaite? One is restrictive if living things are involved.

“The House of Shammai say, one may not take unless one had moved when it was still daylight.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted, as we have stated there: “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, a person stands near the drying figs Friday afternoon in a Sabbatical year and says, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” Is Rebbi Eliezer not a Shammaite? One is restrictive if living things are involved.

“The House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.” The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to there;” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi was knocking on his dovecote and saying, my dovecote shall provide me tomorrow.

“The House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.” The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to there;” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi was knocking on his dovecote and saying, my dovecote shall provide me tomorrow.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.