rebbi

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]. How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]. How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]. How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]. How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]. How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He who covers kilaim is whipped. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Is that not a Mishnah? “Kilaim in a vineyard.” How are kilaim possible by ploughing? It must be by covering! Rebbi Yannai praised him (Is. 46:6:) “Those who pour out gold from the wallet, etc.” (Prov. 3:21) “My son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” (Prov. 9:9) “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” let the wise listen “that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that he who keeps [kilaim] transgresses a prohibition. Rebbi Aqiba said only that he transgresses, did he say to whip? Here we are dealing with whipping. Further, from what we have stated “Sabbatical year.” Can you say that the Sabbatical year follows Rebbi Aqiba? Explain the Sabbatical year following Rebbi Eleazar, as Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? (Lev. 25:2) “The Land should keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,” a general statement. (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” detail. Sowing and trimming were in the general statement, why were they detailed? To trap with them and to tell you that just as sowing and pruning are particular as agricultural work on the earth or on a tree, so everything that is agricultural work on the earth or on a tree [is forbidden]. How does Rebbi Joḥanan deal with this? They are two things and two things that are specified from a general notion divide. Does Rebbi Eleazar not hold that they divide? He holds that they do not divide but instruct. Does Rebbi Joḥanan not hold that they instruct? It is different here because the general statement is a positive commandment and the details are prohibitions; no positive commandment implies anything for a prohibition and no prohibition implies anything for a positive commandment.

Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field”, not in the Seventh, “six years you shall prune your vineyard,” not in the Seventh. Every prohibition derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Yasa said, there is not even a positive commandment! Why is it written (Lev. 25:2): “the Land shall rest for a Sabbath of the Eternal?” For the prohibitions in it.

Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field”, not in the Seventh, “six years you shall prune your vineyard,” not in the Seventh. Every prohibition derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Yasa said, there is not even a positive commandment! Why is it written (Lev. 25:2): “the Land shall rest for a Sabbath of the Eternal?” For the prohibitions in it.

Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field”, not in the Seventh, “six years you shall prune your vineyard,” not in the Seventh. Every prohibition derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Yasa said, there is not even a positive commandment! Why is it written (Lev. 25:2): “the Land shall rest for a Sabbath of the Eternal?” For the prohibitions in it.

Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field”, not in the Seventh, “six years you shall prune your vineyard,” not in the Seventh. Every prohibition derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, he transgresses a positive commandment. Rebbi Yasa said, there is not even a positive commandment! Why is it written (Lev. 25:2): “the Land shall rest for a Sabbath of the Eternal?” For the prohibitions in it.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ ‘Guard yourself’ means a prohibition. And it is written: There you should present, there you should perform.” Because that is written, otherwise I would have said it is a positive commandment. But that you should not say as you say regarding the Sabbath that if somebody dug a hole, made a ditch, and dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense, so similarly, if somebody slaughtered, sprinkled the blood, and presented he should be guilty only of one offense. Therefore, it is necessary to say that he is guilty for each action separately.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeïra said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeïra only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeïra say the pruner is like the planter, did he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the notion of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? There is no difference, both according to Cahana and according to Rebbi Zeïra he is guilty on two counts.

MISHNAH: Domestic animal with [different] domestic animal and wild with [different] wild animal, domesticated with wild and wild with domesticated animal, unclean with [different] unclean and clean with [different] clean animal, unclean with clean and clean with unclean animal, all these are [combinations] forbidden for ploughing, drawing, and leading. The driver absorbs the forty and the one sitting in the cart absorbs the forty. Rebbi Meïr frees him from prosecution. A third animal tied to their harness is forbidden.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads kilaim by voice will be whipped. We have stated so: “If he led it, if he made it draw, if he called it and it came, he is responsible to pay like a borrower.” But did not Samuel state: “If it was standing outside the Sabbath domain, he called it and it came after him, he is free.” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk But did we not state: “If he clapped before his [a slave’s] eye and blinded it, before his [a slave’s] ear and made it deaf, he [the slave] does not attain freedom.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, there is a difference because he [the slave] could have fled. Know that it is so because we have stated: “If he grabbed him he is guilty.”

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads kilaim by voice will be whipped. We have stated so: “If he led it, if he made it draw, if he called it and it came, he is responsible to pay like a borrower.” But did not Samuel state: “If it was standing outside the Sabbath domain, he called it and it came after him, he is free.” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk But did we not state: “If he clapped before his [a slave’s] eye and blinded it, before his [a slave’s] ear and made it deaf, he [the slave] does not attain freedom.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, there is a difference because he [the slave] could have fled. Know that it is so because we have stated: “If he grabbed him he is guilty.”

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads kilaim by voice will be whipped. We have stated so: “If he led it, if he made it draw, if he called it and it came, he is responsible to pay like a borrower.” But did not Samuel state: “If it was standing outside the Sabbath domain, he called it and it came after him, he is free.” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk But did we not state: “If he clapped before his [a slave’s] eye and blinded it, before his [a slave’s] ear and made it deaf, he [the slave] does not attain freedom.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, there is a difference because he [the slave] could have fled. Know that it is so because we have stated: “If he grabbed him he is guilty.”

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads kilaim by voice will be whipped. We have stated so: “If he led it, if he made it draw, if he called it and it came, he is responsible to pay like a borrower.” But did not Samuel state: “If it was standing outside the Sabbath domain, he called it and it came after him, he is free.” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk But did we not state: “If he clapped before his [a slave’s] eye and blinded it, before his [a slave’s] ear and made it deaf, he [the slave] does not attain freedom.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, there is a difference because he [the slave] could have fled. Know that it is so because we have stated: “If he grabbed him he is guilty.”

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads kilaim by voice will be whipped. We have stated so: “If he led it, if he made it draw, if he called it and it came, he is responsible to pay like a borrower.” But did not Samuel state: “If it was standing outside the Sabbath domain, he called it and it came after him, he is free.” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk But did we not state: “If he clapped before his [a slave’s] eye and blinded it, before his [a slave’s] ear and made it deaf, he [the slave] does not attain freedom.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, there is a difference because he [the slave] could have fled. Know that it is so because we have stated: “If he grabbed him he is guilty.”

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, he who leads kilaim by voice will be whipped. We have stated so: “If he led it, if he made it draw, if he called it and it came, he is responsible to pay like a borrower.” But did not Samuel state: “If it was standing outside the Sabbath domain, he called it and it came after him, he is free.” There it comes of its own volition, here it is forced to walk But did we not state: “If he clapped before his [a slave’s] eye and blinded it, before his [a slave’s] ear and made it deaf, he [the slave] does not attain freedom.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, there is a difference because he [the slave] could have fled. Know that it is so because we have stated: “If he grabbed him he is guilty.”

: He who sits in a cart, the rabbis say he is a weight, Rebbi Meïr says, he is no weight.

MISHNAH: One does not tie a horse to the sides or the back of a cart, or a Libyan donkey to camels. Rebbi Jehudah says, all animals born from a horse are permitted one with the other even if their father was a donkey, all animals born from a donkey are permitted one with the other even if their father was a horse, but those born from a horse are forbidden with those from a donkey.

HALAKHAH: : “One does not tie a horse to the sides or the back of a cart.” It is stated: Rebbi Meïr frees from prosecution. If it supported, whether in ascent or in descent, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because the rope is carried between them.

HALAKHAH: : “One does not tie a horse to the sides or the back of a cart.” It is stated: Rebbi Meïr frees from prosecution. If it supported, whether in ascent or in descent, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because the rope is carried between them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he bound them by their hair? Where do we hold? In case he bound them together by their hair, should we say that it is forbidden to let one animal ride on another? If he tied them by a rope, we say because they carry the rope between them. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree, Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because they carry the rope between them. What is the difference? Both according to Rav as also according to Rebbi Joḥanan, if he bound them by their hair he is not punishable!

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he bound them by their hair? Where do we hold? In case he bound them together by their hair, should we say that it is forbidden to let one animal ride on another? If he tied them by a rope, we say because they carry the rope between them. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree, Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because they carry the rope between them. What is the difference? Both according to Rav as also according to Rebbi Joḥanan, if he bound them by their hair he is not punishable!

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he bound them by their hair? Where do we hold? In case he bound them together by their hair, should we say that it is forbidden to let one animal ride on another? If he tied them by a rope, we say because they carry the rope between them. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree, Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because they carry the rope between them. What is the difference? Both according to Rav as also according to Rebbi Joḥanan, if he bound them by their hair he is not punishable!

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he bound them by their hair? Where do we hold? In case he bound them together by their hair, should we say that it is forbidden to let one animal ride on another? If he tied them by a rope, we say because they carry the rope between them. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree, Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because they carry the rope between them. What is the difference? Both according to Rav as also according to Rebbi Joḥanan, if he bound them by their hair he is not punishable!

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he bound them by their hair? Where do we hold? In case he bound them together by their hair, should we say that it is forbidden to let one animal ride on another? If he tied them by a rope, we say because they carry the rope between them. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree, Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because they carry the rope between them. What is the difference? Both according to Rav as also according to Rebbi Joḥanan, if he bound them by their hair he is not punishable!

“And not a Libyan donkey.” Some Tannaïm state: “Not a nybrqvs.” He who says libdĕqēs on the name of Lybian and (Dan. 11:43) “Lybians and Nubians in His train.” He who says nybrqvs ‘bhṭs, What is ‘bḥṭs? A mounting donkey. Rebbi Jonah: Rav Hoshaia asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan but a dry one Egyptian, that means a proselyte from Libya has to wait three generations, it means that Libya is identical with Egypt.

“And not a Libyan donkey.” Some Tannaïm state: “Not a nybrqvs.” He who says libdĕqēs on the name of Lybian and (Dan. 11:43) “Lybians and Nubians in His train.” He who says nybrqvs ‘bhṭs, What is ‘bḥṭs? A mounting donkey. Rebbi Jonah: Rav Hoshaia asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan but a dry one Egyptian, that means a proselyte from Libya has to wait three generations, it means that Libya is identical with Egypt.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are the same.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are the same.

These are its signs: Rebbi Jonah says, if it has small ears, its mother is a horse and its father a donkey; if it has large ears its mother is a donkey and its father a horse. Rebbi Mana ordered those of the patriarch’s estate: If you want to buy a mule, you should buy one with small ears whose mother is a horse and whose father is a donkey.

These are its signs: Rebbi Jonah says, if it has small ears, its mother is a horse and its father a donkey; if it has large ears its mother is a donkey and its father a horse. Rebbi Mana ordered those of the patriarch’s estate: If you want to buy a mule, you should buy one with small ears whose mother is a horse and whose father is a donkey.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a horse from a horse from a donkey with a donkey from a donkey from a horse. Rebbi Ḥaggai, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Issy: descendants of she-goats and ewes are forbidden one with the other. If it were not so, why do we say “a goat from a goat from a ewe with a ewe from a ewe from a goat.”

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a horse from a horse from a donkey with a donkey from a donkey from a horse. Rebbi Ḥaggai, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Issy: descendants of she-goats and ewes are forbidden one with the other. If it were not so, why do we say “a goat from a goat from a ewe with a ewe from a ewe from a goat.”

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a horse from a horse from a donkey with a donkey from a donkey from a horse. Rebbi Ḥaggai, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Issy: descendants of she-goats and ewes are forbidden one with the other. If it were not so, why do we say “a goat from a goat from a ewe with a ewe from a ewe from a goat.”

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a horse from a horse from a donkey with a donkey from a donkey from a horse. Rebbi Ḥaggai, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Issy: descendants of she-goats and ewes are forbidden one with the other. If it were not so, why do we say “a goat from a goat from a ewe with a ewe from a ewe from a goat.”

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a horse from a horse from a donkey with a donkey from a donkey from a horse. Rebbi Ḥaggai, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Issy: descendants of she-goats and ewes are forbidden one with the other. If it were not so, why do we say “a goat from a goat from a ewe with a ewe from a ewe from a goat.”

MISHNAH: Perotiot are forbidden and wild horses are permitted. A great ape is a wild animal; Rebbi Yose says they cause impurity in a tent like a human. The hedgehog and a squirrel mole are wild animals. About the squirrel mole, Rebbi Yose says that the House of Shammai say it defiles in the amount of the volume of an olive in carrying, but in the volume of a lentil by touch. The bison is a domesticated animal; Rebbi Yose says a wild animal. The dog is a wild animal; Rebbi Meïr says a domesticated animal. The pig is a domesticated animal, the wild donkey a wild animal. Elephant and monkey are wild animals. A human is permitted to plough and draw with all of them.

MISHNAH: Perotiot are forbidden and wild horses are permitted. A great ape is a wild animal; Rebbi Yose says they cause impurity in a tent like a human. The hedgehog and a squirrel mole are wild animals. About the squirrel mole, Rebbi Yose says that the House of Shammai say it defiles in the amount of the volume of an olive in carrying, but in the volume of a lentil by touch. The bison is a domesticated animal; Rebbi Yose says a wild animal. The dog is a wild animal; Rebbi Meïr says a domesticated animal. The pig is a domesticated animal, the wild donkey a wild animal. Elephant and monkey are wild animals. A human is permitted to plough and draw with all of them.

MISHNAH: Perotiot are forbidden and wild horses are permitted. A great ape is a wild animal; Rebbi Yose says they cause impurity in a tent like a human. The hedgehog and a squirrel mole are wild animals. About the squirrel mole, Rebbi Yose says that the House of Shammai say it defiles in the amount of the volume of an olive in carrying, but in the volume of a lentil by touch. The bison is a domesticated animal; Rebbi Yose says a wild animal. The dog is a wild animal; Rebbi Meïr says a domesticated animal. The pig is a domesticated animal, the wild donkey a wild animal. Elephant and monkey are wild animals. A human is permitted to plough and draw with all of them.

MISHNAH: Perotiot are forbidden and wild horses are permitted. A great ape is a wild animal; Rebbi Yose says they cause impurity in a tent like a human. The hedgehog and a squirrel mole are wild animals. About the squirrel mole, Rebbi Yose says that the House of Shammai say it defiles in the amount of the volume of an olive in carrying, but in the volume of a lentil by touch. The bison is a domesticated animal; Rebbi Yose says a wild animal. The dog is a wild animal; Rebbi Meïr says a domesticated animal. The pig is a domesticated animal, the wild donkey a wild animal. Elephant and monkey are wild animals. A human is permitted to plough and draw with all of them.

HALAKHAH: “Perotiot are forbidden and wild horses are permitted.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Ramak is without χαλινός “bit”. As one says (Est. 8:10): “the sons of wild horses”.

HALAKHAH: “Perotiot are forbidden and wild horses are permitted.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Ramak is without χαλινός “bit”. As one says (Est. 8:10): “the sons of wild horses”.

“ ‘Field Stones’ is an animal.” Yassi from Arke: It is a mountain man and lives from its navel. If its umbilical cord is cut, it cannot live. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose (Num. 19:16): “All that touches [a slain person] on the surface of the field”, when it grows on the field.

“ ‘Field Stones’ is an animal.” Yassi from Arke: It is a mountain man and lives from its navel. If its umbilical cord is cut, it cannot live. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose (Num. 19:16): “All that touches [a slain person] on the surface of the field”, when it grows on the field.

“ ‘Field Stones’ is an animal.” Yassi from Arke: It is a mountain man and lives from its navel. If its umbilical cord is cut, it cannot live. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose (Num. 19:16): “All that touches [a slain person] on the surface of the field”, when it grows on the field.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai, clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai, the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables, the hermaphrodite among humans, the koi among wild animals according to everybody. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion, “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,” that means it is counted outside.

“The bison is a domesticated animal.” The rabbis say it was from here and escaped there. Rebbi Yose says, its roots were from there. Hence an ox and a bison are not kilaim, not following Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose says it is kilaim. But those who translate “wild oxen and antelopes” follow Rebbi Yose.

“The bison is a domesticated animal.” The rabbis say it was from here and escaped there. Rebbi Yose says, its roots were from there. Hence an ox and a bison are not kilaim, not following Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose says it is kilaim. But those who translate “wild oxen and antelopes” follow Rebbi Yose.

“The bison is a domesticated animal.” The rabbis say it was from here and escaped there. Rebbi Yose says, its roots were from there. Hence an ox and a bison are not kilaim, not following Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose says it is kilaim. But those who translate “wild oxen and antelopes” follow Rebbi Yose.

“The bison is a domesticated animal.” The rabbis say it was from here and escaped there. Rebbi Yose says, its roots were from there. Hence an ox and a bison are not kilaim, not following Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose says it is kilaim. But those who translate “wild oxen and antelopes” follow Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Goose and desert goose are kilaim one with the other. About goose and sea goose, Rebbi Judah ben Pazi stated in the name of Bar Dalaiah and we do not know what he stated. It is a conclusion a minori ad majus: If you say they are forbidden when both of them are on dry land, so much more if one is on dry land and one at sea.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Goose and desert goose are kilaim one with the other. About goose and sea goose, Rebbi Judah ben Pazi stated in the name of Bar Dalaiah and we do not know what he stated. It is a conclusion a minori ad majus: If you say they are forbidden when both of them are on dry land, so much more if one is on dry land and one at sea.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Goose and desert goose are kilaim one with the other. About goose and sea goose, Rebbi Judah ben Pazi stated in the name of Bar Dalaiah and we do not know what he stated. It is a conclusion a minori ad majus: If you say they are forbidden when both of them are on dry land, so much more if one is on dry land and one at sea.

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax, even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”.

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax, even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”.

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax, even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”.

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax, even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”.

We have stated two rules and they do not resemble one another. We have stated: Only wool and linen are forbidden as kilaim, whether dyed or white. We have stated: Only wool and linen can become impure by mold disease, but only white. Rebbi Jonah from Bostra asked before Rebbi Mana: There, you say “whether dyed or white”, but here you say “but only white”? He said to him, there is a difference because the verse repeated twice “wool, wool”; just as linen is in its natural state so also wool must be in its natural state.

We have stated two rules and they do not resemble one another. We have stated: Only wool and linen are forbidden as kilaim, whether dyed or white. We have stated: Only wool and linen can become impure by mold disease, but only white. Rebbi Jonah from Bostra asked before Rebbi Mana: There, you say “whether dyed or white”, but here you say “but only white”? He said to him, there is a difference because the verse repeated twice “wool, wool”; just as linen is in its natural state so also wool must be in its natural state.

Rebbi Zeïra said: It is written (Lev. 16:4) “He shall wear a garment of holy bad,” growing singly. But wool also grows in single strands. It is explained in tradition (Ez. 44:17): “There should be no wool on them when they officiate inside the inner doors.” Therefore, on the outside wool may be on them. From where that they may wear kilaim? As it says (Ex. 39:28): “The cap of byssus, the hat-turbans of byssus, the cloth trousers of spun byssus, and the belt of spun byssus, blue, purple, and crimson.” And it is written (Ez. 44:18): “Linen turbans shall be on their heads, linen trousers shall be on their hips, they shall not belt with sweat.” You infer “byssus” from “byssus”, “byssus” from “turbans”, “turbans” from “turbans”. Just as crimson is made from a living being, so the rest is made from a living being. Just as wool cannot have an epithet so linen cannot have an epithet.

Rebbi Jonah, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Blended wool and flax are forbidden. What can one do? One adds more than a pound of camel’s hair and makes it insignificant. Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Blended wool and flax are neutral. Rav said, they are forbidden in mixture. Do they disagree? Rav speaks about the case when he made the material itself into a garment, Rebbi Jeremiah speaks about the case where he wants to mix it with other things.

Rebbi Jonah, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Blended wool and flax are forbidden. What can one do? One adds more than a pound of camel’s hair and makes it insignificant. Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Blended wool and flax are neutral. Rav said, they are forbidden in mixture. Do they disagree? Rav speaks about the case when he made the material itself into a garment, Rebbi Jeremiah speaks about the case where he wants to mix it with other things.

Rebbi Jonah, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Blended wool and flax are forbidden. What can one do? One adds more than a pound of camel’s hair and makes it insignificant. Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Blended wool and flax are neutral. Rav said, they are forbidden in mixture. Do they disagree? Rav speaks about the case when he made the material itself into a garment, Rebbi Jeremiah speaks about the case where he wants to mix it with other things.

Rebbi Jonah, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Blended wool and flax are forbidden. What can one do? One adds more than a pound of camel’s hair and makes it insignificant. Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Blended wool and flax are neutral. Rav said, they are forbidden in mixture. Do they disagree? Rav speaks about the case when he made the material itself into a garment, Rebbi Jeremiah speaks about the case where he wants to mix it with other things.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

Rebbi Hillel ben Rebbi Vales had a garment worth 30’000 denar, (he gave it to Rebbi who) found kilaim in it and burnt it. Rebbi Mana had a garment worth 30’000 denar. He gave it to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada and told him that he had bought it for the dead. He kept it until he was wrapped in it. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac brought a garment from the cleaner; there were on it ten threads and he rubbed them off. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac commanded his house not to put a bale of wool next to a bale of flax because of the fibers.

It was stated: One does not investigate for a dead person nor in the house of study. Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching where a dead body was present. He did not say anything either to those who left or to those who remained sitting. Rebbi Immi was sitting and teaching when one said to his neighbor: you are wearing kilaim. Rebbi Immi told him: strip yourself of your garment and give it to him.

It was stated: One does not investigate for a dead person nor in the house of study. Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching where a dead body was present. He did not say anything either to those who left or to those who remained sitting. Rebbi Immi was sitting and teaching when one said to his neighbor: you are wearing kilaim. Rebbi Immi told him: strip yourself of your garment and give it to him.

It was stated: One does not investigate for a dead person nor in the house of study. Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching where a dead body was present. He did not say anything either to those who left or to those who remained sitting. Rebbi Immi was sitting and teaching when one said to his neighbor: you are wearing kilaim. Rebbi Immi told him: strip yourself of your garment and give it to him.

MISHNAH: Hand towels, scroll wraps, towels of the bath attendant are not subject to kilaim. Rebbi Eliezer forbids. Barber’s towels are forbidden for kilaim.

HALAKHAH: “Hand towels, etc.” There, we have stated: “There are three kinds of towels. Hand towels may become impure by load; scroll wraps may become impure by the dead; the wrappings of the Levites’ harps are always pure.” Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one may put them on the pillow and sleep on them. Rav said, because he puts them under his upper arms.

HALAKHAH: “Hand towels, etc.” There, we have stated: “There are three kinds of towels. Hand towels may become impure by load; scroll wraps may become impure by the dead; the wrappings of the Levites’ harps are always pure.” Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one may put them on the pillow and sleep on them. Rav said, because he puts them under his upper arms.

Rav said they are forbidden and practice follows him who forbids. Why does he not say one follows Rebbi Eliezer. There are Tannaïm who switch their statements.

Rebbi Joḥanan put a cloth on his garment. Is that not forbidden because of kilaim? [He did it] so that his garments should not wear out. Rebbi Zeriqan said, they gave Rebbi Avina an egg on a towel containing kilaim, but he did not accept it because of “they should not intend to use them as protection from the sun in summer and from the rains in winter.”

Rebbi Joḥanan put a cloth on his garment. Is that not forbidden because of kilaim? [He did it] so that his garments should not wear out. Rebbi Zeriqan said, they gave Rebbi Avina an egg on a towel containing kilaim, but he did not accept it because of “they should not intend to use them as protection from the sun in summer and from the rains in winter.”

Rebbi Joḥanan put a cloth on his garment. Is that not forbidden because of kilaim? [He did it] so that his garments should not wear out. Rebbi Zeriqan said, they gave Rebbi Avina an egg on a towel containing kilaim, but he did not accept it because of “they should not intend to use them as protection from the sun in summer and from the rains in winter.”

“Scroll wraps.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Because he makes them into a kind of container and puts his Torah scroll on them. Rebbi Abba Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph in the name of Rav: Because he uses it to warm his hands. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Abba: Without that would it not be forbidden because of kilaim? He said to him, is not Rav the author? And Rav said they are forbidden and practice follows him who forbids. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Abba, and why did you not say to him that he removes it full. If he had said to him, would it not be forbidden for usufruct, what could you have said to him?