rebbi

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”

MISHNAH: Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned. If it became mixed up with others, all should be burned, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages said, it should be lifted by one in 200.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Everywhere it is written “do not eat, do not eat, it shall not be eaten”, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating unless the verse comes and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? (Ex. 22:30) “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat.” And what did it explain about a carcass? (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it.” Hizqiah stated a disagreement. What does one forbid to the dog?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Everywhere it is written “do not eat, do not eat, it shall not be eaten”, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating unless the verse comes and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? (Ex. 22:30) “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat.” And what did it explain about a carcass? (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it.” Hizqiah stated a disagreement. What does one forbid to the dog?

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing from a stoned ox or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said (Deut. 22:9): “Lest it be sanctified”, lest fire should be kindled. For ‘orlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to remove is written, a prohibition to eat is written, a prohibition to remove it is not written.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing from a stoned ox or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said (Deut. 22:9): “Lest it be sanctified”, lest fire should be kindled. For ‘orlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to remove is written, a prohibition to eat is written, a prohibition to remove it is not written.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing from a stoned ox or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said (Deut. 22:9): “Lest it be sanctified”, lest fire should be kindled. For ‘orlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to remove is written, a prohibition to eat is written, a prohibition to remove it is not written.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, one in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, one in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, one in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, one in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”. The paradigm for all cases is (Lev. 6:23): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said (Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said (Ex. 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”. The paradigm for all cases is (Lev. 6:23): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said (Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said (Ex. 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

If he dyed it and then dyed a second time and spoiled it, if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to him who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to him who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden, here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large?” Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind, can it be compared to: “Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them, but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks.

If he dyed it and then dyed a second time and spoiled it, if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to him who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to him who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden, here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large?” Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind, can it be compared to: “Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them, but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks.

If he dyed it and then dyed a second time and spoiled it, if it needed the first dye it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane walnut shells. According to him who said, if its taste spoils it is permitted, here also it is permitted, but according to him who said, if its taste spoils it is forbidden, here also it is forbidden. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane pomegranate skins, can it be compared to: “Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large?” Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count. There, it is the same kind; here, different kinds. If he dyed with ‘orlah walnut shells and then dyed again with profane shells of the same kind, can it be compared to: “Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black”? There, he may cut them, but here he cannot cut. To what can that be compared? He cuts it into little pieces. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to what can that be compared? A large piece of cloth dyed with the intention that it should be cut to make socks.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, pigments in pigments become insignificant in 200. Fluid dyes in fluid dyes by a majority.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the use of ‘orlah in Tiberias [is judged] by a majority. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “A dish cooked with ‘orlah shells must be burned.” He explains it by a clay vessel among pots. Rebbi Yose said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal say that it is permitted to do so from the start? No, to correct the past. How is that? If it is enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is enough to prohibit. If it is not enough to dye, you consider the permitted [dye] as nonexistent. The prohibited is not enough to prohibit.

There, we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.

There, we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.

There, we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.

May it be used to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: May one use the cloth, which was discussed here, to support the legs of a couch? The latter was offended by this. He said to him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible.

May it be used to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: May one use the cloth, which was discussed here, to support the legs of a couch? The latter was offended by this. He said to him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible.

May it be used to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: May one use the cloth, which was discussed here, to support the legs of a couch? The latter was offended by this. He said to him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible.

May it be used to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: May one use the cloth, which was discussed here, to support the legs of a couch? The latter was offended by this. He said to him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state: “If one took from it {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state: “If one took from it {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state: “If one took from it {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state: “If one took from it {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.

MISHNAH: If somebody dyes [a thread] the length of a sîṭ with ‘orlah shells, uses it to weave cloth, and it is not known where it is, Rebbi Meїr says the cloth should be burned but the Sages say it may be lifted by one in 200. If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned; of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned. Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.

HALAKHAH: Who stated “sîṭ”? Rebbi Meïr! But for the Sages, sîṭ or less than a sîṭ follow the same rules.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Mixed firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”? He said to him, if you had objected there it would have been correct.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

There, we have stated: “These have to be burned.” And we have stated: “These have to be buried.” In one case, you say they have to be burned and in the other you say they have to be buried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here about sackcloth, there about hair. What is the difference between sackcloth and hair? Rebbi Ḥanaiah ben Rebbi Hillel said, a sack can be dug out, hair cannot be dug out. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, here in the Temple, there in the countryside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina says, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir. But did we not state: “A firstling donkey”? Can you say, here in the Temple, there in the countryside, here about a pure nazir, there about an impure nazir? It must be, here about sackcloth, there about hair. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when one says it has to be burned, its hair; when one says it has to be buried, its body.

“Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted. But sacrifices that never will be permitted need a sîṭ. Rebbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted?

“Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted. But sacrifices that never will be permitted need a sîṭ. Rebbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted?

“Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That means, sacrifices that will be permitted. But sacrifices that never will be permitted need a sîṭ. Rebbi Yose objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned”! Is a firstling not a sacrifice that will be permitted?

Some state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves.”

Some state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves.”

Some state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves.”

Some state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves.”

Some state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves.”

Some state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves.”

Some state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves.”

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Jeremiah, Cahana bar Jeremiah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Dimmed ‘orlah growth is permitted. Is that not a baraita: “If it was new it must be broken down, old it should be cooled”? Rebbi Ḥanania said, there is nothing. Rebbi Mana said, there is something: When he brought green wood and dried it with ‘orlah shells.

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

MISHNAH: If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard kilaim, they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rebbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rebbi Meïr said, anything counted sanctifies; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rebbi Aqiba says seven.

MISHNAH: If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard kilaim, they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rebbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rebbi Meïr said, anything counted sanctifies; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rebbi Aqiba says seven.

MISHNAH: If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard kilaim, they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rebbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rebbi Meïr said, anything counted sanctifies; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rebbi Aqiba says seven.

HALAKHAH: How much is a bundle? 25 plants. Rebbi Jonah said, four to a bed.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Badan pomegranates and Geba leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

MISHNAH: They are: Breakable walnuts and pomegranates from Badan, sealed amphoras, beet roots, heads of cabbage, and Greek gourd. Rebbi Aqiba says, also non-commercial loaves. This refers to ‘orlah and vineyard kilaim, as the case may be.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah asked: Therefore, not breakable almonds?

The Mishnah is about sealed among sealed. But a sealed one among open ones which was opened, or an open one among sealed ones which was sealed again need a measure. How is an open one among sealed ones possible? Rebbi Zeïra said, explain as open at the grocer’s and sealed at the private person’s. But did we not state “it was sealed again”? Explain it if the private person came and took it back.

Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All these gourds and pumpkins we eat fall under the rules of Greek gourd.

Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All these gourds and pumpkins we eat fall under the rules of Greek gourd.

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not say it refers to heave? Rebbi Yose said to him: Heave always applies, ‘orlah does not always apply.

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not say it refers to heave? Rebbi Yose said to him: Heave always applies, ‘orlah does not always apply.

HALAKHAH: If they fell down and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added, unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: If they fell down and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added, unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: If they fell down and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added, unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: If they fell down and broke, whether unintentionally or intentionally they should not be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether unintentionally or intentionally they may be lifted. Rebbi Yose says, unintentionally they may be lifted, intentionally they may not be lifted. What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? They fined for the unintentional because of the intentional. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? He already paid his fine. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any prohibited item to which [something permitted] was added, unintentionally it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden.