rebbi

Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold, etc. The Torah called it real estate. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis, the altar is of wood, three cubits its height, etc. The Torah called it movable. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense. But is it not like a table made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there, “there are three baskets”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

HALAKHAH: “One waters irrigated plots,” etc. One understands a well which does not flow newly. A well which flows newly? Is that not requiring effort? But it follows Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr says, one uses it to irrigate even a field depending on rain water. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody if it was one and became two or its waters were few and it was blessed. We have stated thus: “From a well which flowed newly one irrigates even a field depending on rain water, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages are saying one uses it to irrigate only an irrigated plot which dried up.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one irrigates from it something not in danger of loss and something requiring effort. In the opinion of the rabbis one irrigates from it only something in danger of loss and only if not requiring effort. What do the rabbis say if there is danger of loss but it requires effort? Let us hear from the following: Anything which is continuously losing value is an irrigated plot. When it stopped weakening it is a field depending on rain water; the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. How long does it have to be irrigated to become an irrigated field? Only if was irrigated two, three days before the holiday? Let us hear from the following: The Qabray dried up three days before the holiday, and it came back on the holiday. The case came before Rav Ḥuna who said, those weakened shall be irrigated, those not weakened may not be irrigated. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose instructed about that cool shadowy place which was sown with barley that it should be cut on the holiday to avoid their cracking and being lost.

One understands pumped water. Rain water? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decided about rain water because it is like pumped water. Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi La: They stated this only on a holiday; therefore in the Sabbatical it is permitted. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden.

One understands pumped water. Rain water? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decided about rain water because it is like pumped water. Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi La: They stated this only on a holiday; therefore in the Sabbatical it is permitted. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden.

One understands pumped water. Rain water? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decided about rain water because it is like pumped water. Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi La: They stated this only on a holiday; therefore in the Sabbatical it is permitted. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of uninterrupted rest-water? Let us hear from the following: “What is rest-water? All the time that it rains and the mountains are muddy; after the rain stopped and the mountains still are muddy it is rest-water. When they are no longer muddy it is like cistern water.” How far? Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Until the soft soil produces flowers. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: Until they become like goose feet. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If the soft soil produced flowers before it stopped? Is it considered like a source retroactively or only for the future? In which respect? If he immersed in it needles and hooks. If you are saying that retroactively it is considered like a source they are pure, only for the the future they are impure. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked, how do you treat these waterfalls? Like pumped water or not like pumped water? May one irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Let us hear from the following: “but one irrigates neither from rain water nor from pumped water.” Where do we hold? If in a time when it rains, is it not as if irrigating the ocean? But we must hold in the time when the rain stopped. If it is in the time when the rain stopped, is this not like a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped? Since you are saying that one does not irrigate from it this implies that one does not irrigate from a pond which was filled from a well, but water supply from the well stopped. May one irrigate from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it? Let us hear from the following: One irrigates from an irrigated field which drips into another irrigated field. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as long as it drips. Is one able to irrigate because of the dripping, is it not rather because it is full? This implies that one irrigates from a pond which was filled with pumped water but one channelled well water into it. Samuel stated thus: One does not irrigate on a holiday from pools and ponds which were filled before the holiday. But one irrigates without hesitation if a water channel passes through them.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year but the Sages are saying that one makes new water canals in the Sabbatical year and one fixes the broken ones on the holiday and one repairs all defects in the public water system and cleans it. Also one repairs the roads, and the streets, and water pools, and one looks after all public needs, and marks the graves, and also goes to inspect for kilaim.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids unless he raises or lowers by three {hand-breadths} or puts it on a rock.” One may give two explanations. If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah parallels Rebbi Yose. Just as Rebbi Yose says, manure is not easily found, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, manure is not easily found. One may give another explanation: If he had a small amount{of manure} in his house from before the Sabbatical and he wants to transport it to his field during the Sabbatical, he may continuously add to it after the sinning sinners stopped. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah forbids it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah? Maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place. Is it not already fertilized from before the Sabbatical? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression, unless he transports ten boxes together. Do the rabbis not care about bad impressions? Rebbi Idi said his stick, his basket, and his shovel prove that he intends to make a dungheap. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun applied these traditions from here, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one does not make new water canals on the holiday or in the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, because he would prepare its banks to be sown. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: because of the bad impression. They wanted to say, the one who says there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says there “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, what would you have here? The only answer would be, “maybe there will be no more manure and it turns out that he fertilizes that place.” What is the difference between them? If he dug a water canal for a building. They wanted to say that the one who said there “because of the bad impression” also here “because of the bad impression”. The one who says here “because he would prepare its banks to be sown”, clearly here its banks will not be prepared to be sown. Everybody agrees that if he assembled there stones, pebbles, lime, or cement it is permitted.

“One fixes the broken ones on the holiday.” If it is for the needs of the holiday, but anything not for the needs of the holiday is forbidden for an individual, however for the public even not for the needs of the holiday it is permitted. As the following: the baths of Sakuta were damaged on the holiday and Rebbi Abbahu permitted them to be repaired on the holiday. If it needs exertion and he planned it, we would not say so, only if he did not intend his work for the holiday. They said, if it is not done now it never will be done. The cauldron of Sepphoris was damaged on the holiday. The colleagues wanted to say that it is permitted from the following, “one repairs all defects in the public water system.” Rebbi Phineas said, Rebbi Jeremiah only forbade because of the rules of the hammer. The cemetery of Bar Meqatia was damaged on the holiday. Rav Ḥuna was of the opinion that it is permitted from the following: “and one looks after all public needs.” Rebbi Mana told him, but did not Rebbi Samuel state, “only to smooth its fissures.”

“One fixes the broken ones on the holiday.” If it is for the needs of the holiday, but anything not for the needs of the holiday is forbidden for an individual, however for the public even not for the needs of the holiday it is permitted. As the following: the baths of Sakuta were damaged on the holiday and Rebbi Abbahu permitted them to be repaired on the holiday. If it needs exertion and he planned it, we would not say so, only if he did not intend his work for the holiday. They said, if it is not done now it never will be done. The cauldron of Sepphoris was damaged on the holiday. The colleagues wanted to say that it is permitted from the following, “one repairs all defects in the public water system.” Rebbi Phineas said, Rebbi Jeremiah only forbade because of the rules of the hammer. The cemetery of Bar Meqatia was damaged on the holiday. Rav Ḥuna was of the opinion that it is permitted from the following: “and one looks after all public needs.” Rebbi Mana told him, but did not Rebbi Samuel state, “only to smooth its fissures.”

“One fixes the broken ones on the holiday.” If it is for the needs of the holiday, but anything not for the needs of the holiday is forbidden for an individual, however for the public even not for the needs of the holiday it is permitted. As the following: the baths of Sakuta were damaged on the holiday and Rebbi Abbahu permitted them to be repaired on the holiday. If it needs exertion and he planned it, we would not say so, only if he did not intend his work for the holiday. They said, if it is not done now it never will be done. The cauldron of Sepphoris was damaged on the holiday. The colleagues wanted to say that it is permitted from the following, “one repairs all defects in the public water system.” Rebbi Phineas said, Rebbi Jeremiah only forbade because of the rules of the hammer. The cemetery of Bar Meqatia was damaged on the holiday. Rav Ḥuna was of the opinion that it is permitted from the following: “and one looks after all public needs.” Rebbi Mana told him, but did not Rebbi Samuel state, “only to smooth its fissures.”

“One fixes the broken ones on the holiday.” If it is for the needs of the holiday, but anything not for the needs of the holiday is forbidden for an individual, however for the public even not for the needs of the holiday it is permitted. As the following: the baths of Sakuta were damaged on the holiday and Rebbi Abbahu permitted them to be repaired on the holiday. If it needs exertion and he planned it, we would not say so, only if he did not intend his work for the holiday. They said, if it is not done now it never will be done. The cauldron of Sepphoris was damaged on the holiday. The colleagues wanted to say that it is permitted from the following, “one repairs all defects in the public water system.” Rebbi Phineas said, Rebbi Jeremiah only forbade because of the rules of the hammer. The cemetery of Bar Meqatia was damaged on the holiday. Rav Ḥuna was of the opinion that it is permitted from the following: “and one looks after all public needs.” Rebbi Mana told him, but did not Rebbi Samuel state, “only to smooth its fissures.”

“One fixes the broken ones on the holiday.” If it is for the needs of the holiday, but anything not for the needs of the holiday is forbidden for an individual, however for the public even not for the needs of the holiday it is permitted. As the following: the baths of Sakuta were damaged on the holiday and Rebbi Abbahu permitted them to be repaired on the holiday. If it needs exertion and he planned it, we would not say so, only if he did not intend his work for the holiday. They said, if it is not done now it never will be done. The cauldron of Sepphoris was damaged on the holiday. The colleagues wanted to say that it is permitted from the following, “one repairs all defects in the public water system.” Rebbi Phineas said, Rebbi Jeremiah only forbade because of the rules of the hammer. The cemetery of Bar Meqatia was damaged on the holiday. Rav Ḥuna was of the opinion that it is permitted from the following: “and one looks after all public needs.” Rebbi Mana told him, but did not Rebbi Samuel state, “only to smooth its fissures.”

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one draws water from tree to tree, but he should not water the entire orchard. Produce which was not irrigated before the holiday he may not irrigate during the holiday. However, the Sages permit in both cases.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel. They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If they are tightly planted everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob treats it as widely spaced, the rabbis treat it as tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if widely spaced it is forbidden to irrigate; may one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say that it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced it is forbidden; but is white dust not as if widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden. It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, <the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Eliezer Ben Jacob forbids.>”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel. They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If they are tightly planted everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob treats it as widely spaced, the rabbis treat it as tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if widely spaced it is forbidden to irrigate; may one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say that it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced it is forbidden; but is white dust not as if widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden. It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, <the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Eliezer Ben Jacob forbids.>”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel. They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If they are tightly planted everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob treats it as widely spaced, the rabbis treat it as tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if widely spaced it is forbidden to irrigate; may one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say that it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced it is forbidden; but is white dust not as if widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden. It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, <the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Eliezer Ben Jacob forbids.>”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel. They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If they are tightly planted everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob treats it as widely spaced, the rabbis treat it as tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if widely spaced it is forbidden to irrigate; may one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say that it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced it is forbidden; but is white dust not as if widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden. It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, <the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Eliezer Ben Jacob forbids.>”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel. They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If they are tightly planted everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob treats it as widely spaced, the rabbis treat it as tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if widely spaced it is forbidden to irrigate; may one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say that it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced it is forbidden; but is white dust not as if widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden. It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, <the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Eliezer Ben Jacob forbids.>”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel. They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If they are tightly planted everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob treats it as widely spaced, the rabbis treat it as tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if widely spaced it is forbidden to irrigate; may one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say that it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced it is forbidden; but is white dust not as if widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden. It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, <the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Eliezer Ben Jacob forbids.>”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel. They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If they are tightly planted everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob treats it as widely spaced, the rabbis treat it as tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if widely spaced it is forbidden to irrigate; may one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say that it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced it is forbidden; but is white dust not as if widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden. It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, <the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Eliezer Ben Jacob forbids.>”

MISHNAH: One may catch the mole and rats from an orchard or a white field normally on the holiday or in the Sabbatical; Rebbi Jehudah says from an orchard normally but from a white field with a change. One mends a breach on the holiday; but in the Sabbatical he builds normally.

“One mends a breach on the holiday,” stone on stone and pebble on pebble; “but in the Sabbatical he builds normally,” stone on pebble and pebble on stone. Only a breach which is not surrounded by dust. But it is forbidden to mend a breach which is surrounded by dust in the Sabbatical year. It was stated such: In the Sabbatical year it is forbidden to fence in any breach which is surrounded by dust; but it is permitted fence in any breach which is not surrounded by dust, unless it represents a danger to the public. But if it represents a danger to the public even though it is surrounded by dust it may be fenced in in the Sabbatical year. As the following: “If his wall was sloping one tears it down and rebuilds.” Could he not tear down and not build? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the beginning. For if you tell him not to build he will not tear down and create a danger.

“One mends a breach on the holiday,” stone on stone and pebble on pebble; “but in the Sabbatical he builds normally,” stone on pebble and pebble on stone. Only a breach which is not surrounded by dust. But it is forbidden to mend a breach which is surrounded by dust in the Sabbatical year. It was stated such: In the Sabbatical year it is forbidden to fence in any breach which is surrounded by dust; but it is permitted fence in any breach which is not surrounded by dust, unless it represents a danger to the public. But if it represents a danger to the public even though it is surrounded by dust it may be fenced in in the Sabbatical year. As the following: “If his wall was sloping one tears it down and rebuilds.” Could he not tear down and not build? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the beginning. For if you tell him not to build he will not tear down and create a danger.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict; but the Sages say, neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Meïr also said, a person may collect his father’s or mother’s bones because it is an occasion of joy. Rebbi Yose says, it is an occasion of mourning. Thirty days before the holiday one should neither memorialize nor eulogize his deceased.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict; but the Sages say, neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Meïr also said, a person may collect his father’s or mother’s bones because it is an occasion of joy. Rebbi Yose says, it is an occasion of mourning. Thirty days before the holiday one should neither memorialize nor eulogize his deceased.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict; but the Sages say, neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Meïr also said, a person may collect his father’s or mother’s bones because it is an occasion of joy. Rebbi Yose says, it is an occasion of mourning. Thirty days before the holiday one should neither memorialize nor eulogize his deceased.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “A white spot in the size of a grit and it spread in the size of a grit [and in the spread appeared a healthy spot or a white hair] but the original disappeared. Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure, but the Sages are saying, it should be seen as a new case.” Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case as absolutely {impure}. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, holiday eve is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And this is “not to restrict” that you should not deal with the second case neither to alleviate nor to restrict. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, it turns out that the single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there and the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here. The single opinion here parallels the anonymous opinion there: Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and you do not deal with him neither to alleviate nor to restrict. And the single opinion there parallels the anonymous opinion here: The rabbis are saying that this is a new case and you free him from the first one. And we have stated here, “Rebbi Meïr says, one inspects skin-disease to alleviate but not to restrict” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Either following the single opinion here or the rabbis here the rabbis there agree to alleviate but not to restrict. There, if the original disappeared, but here, if the indications {of impurity} disappeared and the original remains. “Rebbi said, the opinion of Rebbi Yose is reasonable for one in quarantine and the opinion of Rebbi Meïr if he is absolutely {impure}.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, they disagree about the holiday itself. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case; could he enter the Temple courtyard? But the rabbis are saying, this is a new case; could he not enter the Temple courtyard? Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba declares him impure absolutely. But the rabbis are saying, it should be seen as a new case to become absolute. What is between them? (It will be sweet for him to hear a temporary release from the mouth of the Cohen.) Samuel said, they disagree about expansion. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. One said in Samuel’s name, expansion and treatment-resistant scabies is between them. Rebbi Aqiba says that this is the former case and the expansion of impurity is pure. But the rabbis are saying that this is a new case and the expansion of purity is impure. Because it is another case. Therefore otherwise it would be pure. It parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said when they differed, if it developed treatment-resistant scabies, Rebbi Joḥanan said pure, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said impure.

Rebbi Meïr also said, a person may collect his father’s or mother’s bones because it is an occasion of joy. In earlier times, they were burying them in ditches. When the flesh had rotted away, they collected them and buried them in cedar wood. On the day itself he was mourning, the day after he was happy, implying that his parents were at rest from judgment.

It was stated: If a person transports a casket from place to place the rules of collecting bones do not apply. Rebbi Aḥa said, that only is about a stone sarcophagus. But to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do apply. Rebbi Yose said, even to a wooden casket the rules of collecting bones do not apply. When is there collecting bones? If one transports them in a striped garment from place to place. And it was stated thus: In collecting bones one collects them bone by bone after the flesh has decomposed. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Collecting bones {is} what it means. It was stated: There is no information about collecting bones. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, that is if he was informed the next day. But on the day itself there is information about collecting bones. Is there a minimum for collecting bones? Nikomachos stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is no minimum about collecting bones. About this, Rebbi Mana instructed Rebbi Hillel from Kifra to tear and mourn following Rebbi Aḥa but not to defile himself following Rebbi Yose. It was stated: When collecting bones one does not recite lamentations and dirges; one recites neither the blessings for mourners nor the consolations for mourners. These are blessings for mourners: <what is recited in the synagogue. These are consolations of mourners,> what is said in the row. It was stated: But one says words. What are words? The rabbis <of Caesarea> are saying, eulogies.