rebbi

Ganiva said, he was continuing teaching as ruling. Rebbi Jonah from Bostra asked, if he was continuing teaching as ruling, is that what we were stating: “against the will of the Sages”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: Bar Delaya stated, they told him, either remove yourself from between us or remove the strip from between its horns. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he was shielding himself against them. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it went out once and his teeth became black from the fasts and mortification. Rebbi Idi from Ḥotra said, it was his wife. And from where that his wife is called “calf”? “Had you not ploughed with my calf you would not have solved my riddle” There, they are saying, it was his neighbor. Is anybody punished for his neighbor’s behavior? Rebbi Qiris from Irma: To teach you that if anybody has the possibility to protest and he does not protest, the damage is attached to him.

Ganiva said, he was continuing teaching as ruling. Rebbi Jonah from Bostra asked, if he was continuing teaching as ruling, is that what we were stating: “against the will of the Sages”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: Bar Delaya stated, they told him, either remove yourself from between us or remove the strip from between its horns. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he was shielding himself against them. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it went out once and his teeth became black from the fasts and mortification. Rebbi Idi from Ḥotra said, it was his wife. And from where that his wife is called “calf”? “Had you not ploughed with my calf you would not have solved my riddle” There, they are saying, it was his neighbor. Is anybody punished for his neighbor’s behavior? Rebbi Qiris from Irma: To teach you that if anybody has the possibility to protest and he does not protest, the damage is attached to him.

“In the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, my father once ate at Rabban Gamliel’s when they brought before him oily fish sauces containing ground pepper. When he tasted this, he put it away. They said to him, do not worry, they were ground the day before.” But would not Rebbi Ṣadoq be as in error with Rabban Gamliel and could eat? But not to permit work by the example of Rabban Gamliel.

“In the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, my father once ate at Rabban Gamliel’s when they brought before him oily fish sauces containing ground pepper. When he tasted this, he put it away. They said to him, do not worry, they were ground the day before.” But would not Rebbi Ṣadoq be as in error with Rabban Gamliel and could eat? But not to permit work by the example of Rabban Gamliel.

“In the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, my father once ate at Rabban Gamliel’s when they brought before him oily fish sauces containing ground pepper. When he tasted this, he put it away. They said to him, do not worry, they were ground the day before.” But would not Rebbi Ṣadoq be as in error with Rabban Gamliel and could eat? But not to permit work by the example of Rabban Gamliel.

MISHNAH: A baby carriage is impure as support, may be used on the Sabbath, but is drawn on implements. Rebbi Jehudah said, no vessels are drawn except a carriage because it compresses.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was daytime. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was daytime. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish”. Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found.

HALAKHAH: Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was daytime. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was daytime. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish”. Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav, they wanted to say, they are permitted the next day. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav, they wanted to say, they are permitted the next day. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav, they wanted to say, they are permitted the next day. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav, they wanted to say, they are permitted the next day. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav, they wanted to say, they are permitted the next day. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav, they wanted to say, they are permitted the next day. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav, they wanted to say, they are permitted the next day. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MISHNAH: A dangerously sick animal one should not slaughter unless it be known that one may eat from it a roasted piece in the size of an olive during daytime. Rebbi Aqiba says, even raw in its slaughter house. If he slaughtered in the fields he should not bring it by a yoke or a small yoke, but brings limb by limb in his hands.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If he slaughtered it and wolves ate its intestines it is qualified, for the presumption of intestines is qualification. Should one not worry that maybe they were punctured? The presumption of intestines is that they are qualified. It was stated: But one may bring it on its hide. What does he do? He leaves one limb on it and brings it together with it.

MISHNAH: If a firstling fell into a cistern, Rebbi Jehudah says, the expert should go down and inspect; if it has a defect he may lift it and slaughter; Rebbi Simeon says, any whose defect was not recognizable on the eve of the holiday is not prepared.

MISHNAH: If a firstling fell into a cistern, Rebbi Jehudah says, the expert should go down and inspect; if it has a defect he may lift it and slaughter; Rebbi Simeon says, any whose defect was not recognizable on the eve of the holiday is not prepared.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there, “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. But was it not stated, a [firstling] calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it. There came a case before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared. He changed his opinion.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

MISHNAH: An animal which dies one may not move from its place. It happened that Rebbi Tarphon was asked about this and about ḥallah which became impure. He entered the study hall and asked. They told him that one may not move them from their place.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy, so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy, so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy, so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy, so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy, so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy, so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy, so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

MISHNAH: One does not subscribe to an animal on the holiday but one subscribes to it on the eve of the holiday and then slaughters and distributes among them. Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.

It was stated: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted.

It was stated: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted.

It was stated: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted.

It was stated: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted.

It was stated: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted.

It was stated: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a person may calm himself by pounds, to know what he got. As the following: Rebbi Mana bought Sabbatical carob fruit. He asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who answered him, the rabbis use to follow that of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a person may calm himself by pounds, to know what he got. As the following: Rebbi Mana bought Sabbatical carob fruit. He asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who answered him, the rabbis use to follow that of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.