refers

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a sign for mountains are ash trees, for valleys dates, for brooks reeds, for the lowland sycamores. Even if it is no proof, there is a sign (1K. 10:27, 2Chr. 1:19, 9:27)): ‘Cedars he [Solomon] gave as many as sycamores in the lowland.’ ” Some people want to say it was said as a legal term, others say it refers to the calf whose neck is to be broken.

It was stated: “With his lips but not in his mind.” I could think that I exclude him who decides in his mind, the verse says (Lev. 5:4): “To articulate”. But Samuel said, he who decides in his mind is not obliged until he pronounces with his lips. But did we not state: “(Ex. 35:5) Everyone who volunteers in his mind,” that is he who decides in his mind. You say, that is he who decides in his mind, but maybe that is he who pronounces with his lips? When he says (Deut. 23:24): “What comes out from your lips you have to keep,” that speaks about him who pronounces with his lips. Therefore, how can I confirm “every one who volunteers in his mind?” That is he who decides in his mind. What Samuel said refers to a sacrifice.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the last two. Why? Because these have affinity to heave and tithes. Do gleanings and forgotten sheaves never have affinity to heave and tithes? But we deal with growth of peah and standing peah. Does this not simply answer Hilfai’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, but did we not state “gleanings”? How can you have peah from gleanings? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, about everything.

Nathan bar Hoshiah said, one speaks about a girl, the other about an adult woman. The girl has a fine but cannot be sold, the adult has no fine, she cannot be sold; has she no claim for shame and blemish? The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or forgave him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays and is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. Why should he pay and not have to be flogged? From perjured witnesses. Just as perjured witnesses pay and are not flogged, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Nathan bar Hoshaiah: (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.

There, we have stated: “The center parts of water melon and what is cleaned from vegetables of heave, Rebbi Dosa permits to laymen but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They taught that only for what is cleaned from vegetables of gardeners. But for what is cleaned from vegetables of private people, even the rabbis will agree. Rebbi Abun asked: Is it not reasonable that this refers only to the Great Heave, but for heave of the tithe torn-off leaves do not count for leaves, neither do torn-off stems for stems?

New section. “All red fruits when they start to become red.” Miasha stated: Even if only one pomegranate was soft, all is connected for tithe. “A bunch of grapes one berry of which became red is all connected for tithes.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, they made it clear to us, [this refers to] the entire vine, even to the entire strain. They added and made it clear, all this direction. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the entire vineyard. If it was a small vineyard and he made it large, large and he made it small, one and he split in into two, two which he united?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: From when are olives subject to tithes? When the quickly growing summer fruit first ripens. If no quickly growing summer fruit ripens, when white figs first ripen. If there are no white figs to ripen, when the second batch is seen in the muqẓeh. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, when the first really white white figs ripen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this refers only to white figs of the same place.

They heard before Rebbi Joḥanan that he said to them, practice follows all of them restrictively. Why do they not say it in his name? That not a word of Rebbi Joḥanan should disagree with another word of his. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba, one where one person opens and another one locks it is free; two partners but not two tenants.” What is the difference between a partner and a tenant? Just as a partner may object so a tenant may object! Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah refers to a landlord and his tenant. The landlord may object to the tenant, the tenant may not object to the landlord. About that they heard before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jonah said, Zeïra and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Immi said, the house of Rebbi Yannai instructed that practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba.

If it rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there, may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree, to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following: If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.

Does not the fire induce ṭevel anyhow? Explain it if the dish was cold. “In a pot it is obligated;” Rebbi Eleazar said, that refers to an empty pot. The Mishnah does not say so, but “he who prepares wine sauce for a dish is free but in a pot it is obligated for it is like a small cistern.”

Rebbi said, all according to computation; this refers to the first part [of the Mishnah].

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.” ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together!

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it refers back to the first [part]. Rebbi Ba said, to the second.

“It turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.” Some Tannaїm state: “The leniency becomes a severity”. He who says the severity becomes a leniency, [refers to] Rebbi Aqiba; he who says the leniency becomes a severity, [refers to] the rabbis.

“It turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.” Some Tannaїm state: “The leniency becomes a severity”. He who says the severity becomes a leniency, [refers to] Rebbi Aqiba; he who says the leniency becomes a severity, [refers to] the rabbis.

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.

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.

“And kilaim by rabbinic decree.” Samuel said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden. Rav Huna said, when Westerners descended from there, they said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and proved it. (Lev. 19:19) “You must keep My basic Laws, your animals you should not mate kilaim, your field you shall not sow kilaim, …, ša‘aṭnez shall not come upon you.” It bracketed kilaim of seeds with kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals. Since kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals do not depend on the Land and apply inside and outside the Land, so also kilaim of seeds, while they depend on the Land, do apply inside and outside the Land.

“And kilaim by rabbinic decree.” Samuel said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden. Rav Huna said, when Westerners descended from there, they said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and proved it. (Lev. 19:19) “You must keep My basic Laws, your animals you should not mate kilaim, your field you shall not sow kilaim, …, ša‘aṭnez shall not come upon you.” It bracketed kilaim of seeds with kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals. Since kilaim of clothing and kilaim of animals do not depend on the Land and apply inside and outside the Land, so also kilaim of seeds, while they depend on the Land, do apply inside and outside the Land.

It was stated: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land.” Samuel explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden.

It was stated: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land.” Samuel explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: “One does not work with a Gentile in kilaim, be it vineyard kilaim or kilaim of seeds. But in towns which form enclaves in the Land of Israel such as Baïna and Baïma and similar ones one may work with them in kilaim. Just as kilaim are [forbidden] in the Land, so they are outside the Land;” that refers to vineyard kilaim. Therefore, kilaim of seeds are forbidden.

“And honey”. This refers to dates. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It is written (2Chr. 31:5) “When the thing expanded, the Children of Israel did increase the first gifts of grain, cider, oil, and honey.” Is honey subject to tithes? But this refers to dates which are subject to tithes.

“And honey”. This refers to dates. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It is written (2Chr. 31:5) “When the thing expanded, the Children of Israel did increase the first gifts of grain, cider, oil, and honey.” Is honey subject to tithes? But this refers to dates which are subject to tithes.

HALAKHAH: “For heave and First Fruits,” etc. It is written (Num.18.8): “Behold, I gave to you the watch over My heaves.” Two heaves, heave and First Fruits. About heave it is written (Lev. 22:9): “They should not carry sin because of it and die if they desecrate it.” First fruits as it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There you shall bring your elevation offerings,” these are First Fruits, as it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.” Maybe we should say that the verse refers to sacrifices? Extirpation is already written in regard to sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A person should not sit before the barber,” etc. We have stated “close to the afternoon prayers.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, close to darkness. Our Mishnah needs Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita and Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita needs our Mishnah. If Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that he means exactly darkness but not the afternoon prayers. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary. But if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that everywhere “afternoon prayers” is stated it means afternoon prayers, and everywhere “darkness” is stated it means darkness. Since we stated “afternoon prayers” and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “darkness”, this implies that “darkness” stated later refers to the time of afternoon prayers. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother said, our Mishnah refers to the vulgar, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated to fellows. The rabbis of Caesarea say our Mishnah is following Rebbi Jehudah, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A person should not sit before the barber,” etc. We have stated “close to the afternoon prayers.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, close to darkness. Our Mishnah needs Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita and Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita needs our Mishnah. If Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that he means exactly darkness but not the afternoon prayers. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary. But if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that everywhere “afternoon prayers” is stated it means afternoon prayers, and everywhere “darkness” is stated it means darkness. Since we stated “afternoon prayers” and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “darkness”, this implies that “darkness” stated later refers to the time of afternoon prayers. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother said, our Mishnah refers to the vulgar, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated to fellows. The rabbis of Caesarea say our Mishnah is following Rebbi Jehudah, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the rabbis.

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together. Of these, to obligate for derivatives. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken; he is liable only once. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them. Like prostration to obligate for partial action. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written, if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, it is written: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity, and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity, and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs.

“The enclosure of a cistern or a rock high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths].” Where do we hold? If ten high (and four wide, it is a domain by itself. Ten high) but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Issi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways; on condition that he not exchange. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high. But did not Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, say, anything which hinders access in the public domain is called karmelit? Rebbi Yudan said, what Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, said refers to the middle, but on the side the public domain invalidates it.

From a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one transports neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. If it was less than this it is permitted. What is the difference between a rock and a ship? A ship rises and falls; a rock stays in its place. But is it not karmelit? Is it permitted to move on karmelit only four cubits? Rebbi Ila said, it refers to the beginning: “from a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it.” If it was higher it becomes like a fence made for agriculture where inside one is permitted to transport only four cubits. If it was lower one transports from it to the sea and from the sea onto it, and one transports up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, two adjacent karmeliot, may one transport from one to the other? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since the sea surrounds it from all sides it is considered as a single karmelit.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rebbi Mana said, in the days of Rebbi Yose children were carrying Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rebbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? Lest you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, lest you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical [beams]. Rebbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical [beams]; but the vertical [beams] at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rebbi Yose said: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rebbi Joḥanan asked Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does [not] follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. (We asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.) We asked about it, we would think this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him? Samuel said, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, for example what we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”? He told him, did I not say Eruvin but partitions? Cahana shares Samuel’s opinion. Therefore it was necessary to say that practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rabban Gamliel said, if happened that a Sadducee,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and following Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, and we asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? We asked about it, we would think to say that this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If the owner of a house participated with several neighbors,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: They stated this in commercial practice. Everybody with wine, since he does not care about mixing, it does not need an eruv. If with wine with one but oil with the other, since he cares about mixing, it needs an eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: The Mishnah refers to the case that all is in one vessel. Rebbi Zeriqan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that they are used to drink οἰνόγαρον. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus says, in every case they are forbidden until they make an eruv. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Ze`ira: Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rebbi Meïr. Which [statement of] Rebbi Meïr? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Meïr who said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Meïr who said that one may not make an eruv for a person without his knowledge. In the opinion of Rebbi Mana, following Rebbi Ze`ira, in the opinion of Rav following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Some state “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv.” Some state, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin.” For him who says “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv”, “less than this” refers to the plank. For him who says, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin,” “less than this” refers to the space.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Some state “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv.” Some state, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin.” For him who says “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv”, “less than this” refers to the plank. For him who says, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin,” “less than this” refers to the space.

The following is obvious. If both of them are by a door, both of them are forbidden the house (in which are) [between] two courtyards. For one of them by throwing and for one by lowering. Samuel says, lowering is permitted since it is ordinary but throwing is forbidden since it is not ordinary. Rav said, it did not do anything. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “anything higher than ten hand-breadths belongs to the balcony, less than this to the courtyard.” The Mishnah refers to the case that neither one uses by throwing nor by lowering; within three hand-breadths of the upper one which is more than ten hand-breadths from the lower one. Where do Rav and Samuel disagree? If it is equal.

HALAKHAH: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Our Mishnah [refers to] one roof only, but on another roof it is forbidden. If it is not level, but if it is level it is permitted. Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Should one not be able to move there up to the place of the partitions? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥiyya: What Samuel said, on this Sabbath itself, what the Mishnah deals with the next Sabbath. Where do we hold? If they made one eruv together, they should be permitted both on this and on the next Sabbath. If they did not make any eruv, they should be forbidden both on this and on the next Sabbath. The case happened as it happened. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: When each of them made separate eruvin, nevertheless the large one is permitted since it is breached along its entire length and the small one is forbidden since it was not breached along its entire length.

Rebbi Ḥiyya said, “the same holds for a wine press,” refers to tithes.

The Mishnah refers to the case that there are no hinges. But if there are hinges that is what was stated: “a hinged door, a hinged mat, hinged lattice gates, one may open and lock on the Sabbath, and it is not necessary to say on a holiday. If a mat was tied to and hanging from a pillar, one may open and lock on the Sabbath, and it is not necessary to say on a holiday.”

HALAKHAH: Therefore it is forbidden for eating? The Mishnah refers to a place where they are used not to eat Gentile bread; [but at a place where they used to eat Gentile bread] it is permitted even for eating.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”, and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”, and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

“An orphan for whom guardians slaughtered may eat where he desires.” The Mishnah refers to an underage orphan. But an adult orphan is like one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim; as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose says, the Mishnah says so, “if he slaughtered a kid goat and a lamb, one eats from the first.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct? And he accepted it from him. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”. Since (breaking the neck) is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke] is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread.] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt, “taking” is mentioned for lulav. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle, so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle.] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct? And he accepted it from him. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”. Since (breaking the neck) is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke] is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread.] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt, “taking” is mentioned for lulav. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle, so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle.] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing.

“And the woman recovering after childbirth wears shoes, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” We were thinking to say that this refers to the last statement; it was found stated referring to all of them.

Some want to understand it from this: You may not eat in your gates etc. Your cider’, that is the wine. And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If you could say that it is clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure”, one reads this in Halakhah One.

There, we have stated: “For these one is liable for extirpation in case of intentional transgression, or a purification sacrifice for unintentional transgression, and for what was not certainly known in their cases a suspended sacrifice.” But did not the day of Atonement already atone? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Levi from Sokho: The Mishnah refers to one who rebels on the Day of Atonement.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Three contributions are mentioned in the paragraph, the contribution for the bases, the contribution for sheqalim, and the contribution for the Sanctuary. Speak to the Children of Israel, they shall take for me a contribution, that is the contribution for the bases. From any man of goodwill take my contribution, this refers to the contribution for sheqalim. This is the contribution which you shall take from them, that is the contribution for the Sanctuary. The contribution for the Sanctuary is for the Sanctuary, they may use it in any way they want. The contribution for sheqalim is for sacrifices, they may use it in any way they want, so that everybody’s part of it be the same. The contribution for the bases [is for the bases], the rich may not increase and the poor may not decrease. Rebbi Abun said, also in this paragraph are three contributions mentioned.

From where that a declaration of forfeiture by a court makes it ownerless? It is written: Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction and he shall be separated from the community of the Diaspora. From where that it is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa understood it from the following: “One intercalates years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated.” The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is only before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year.

It was stated: One does not intercalate in the Sabbatical Year [nor in the year following the Sabbatical;] but only in other years of a Sabbatical period, but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. Rebbi Mana said, that refers to earlier times when years were in order, but now that years are not in order, the Sabbatical year is like any other year. It was stated: The house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Avin said, from this you do not infer anything. watch the spring month. Watch it that it should come in its renewal.

Rebbi Jonah said, it is written: Therefore, I shall distribute to him in public, and with the powerful he shall have part in booty, that is Rebbi Aqiba who organized interpretation of Scripture, practice, and homiletics. But some say, this refers to the men of the Great Assembly, who organized principles and details.

Rebbi Jonah said, it is not written, “hail to him who gives to the needy,“ but: hail to him who is considerate to the needy; this refers to him who fulfills this commandment intelligently. How did Rebbi Jonah do it? When he saw a son of a prominent family who had lost his property, he used to say to him: My son, since I heard that an inheritance fell to you at another place, take and you will pay back. When he had taken it, he said to him, it is a gift.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “The Ark was deported with them to Babylon. What is the reason? There will not remain a word. Word refers only to what contains the Words. And so it says, at the turn of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon with the desirable vessels of the Eternal’s House. What are the desirables of the Eternal’s House? This is the Ark. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, at its place it was hidden. That is what is written, the poles were long; the tips of the poles were seen in the Sanctuary, in front of the Hall, but were not seen outside,<and were there until this day.> It is written, were seen, and you are saying, but were not seen. They protrude and stick out like a woman’s breasts.

From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it refers only to: make a golden wreath as its frame all around? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth.

It is written, in addition to the Sabbaths of the Eternal, and in addition to your gifts, etc., which you will give to the Eternal. For I could think that on a holiday one brings only the holiday sacrifices; from where that sacrifices by a single person or by a community which were dedicated for the holiday shall be brought on the holiday? The verse says, in addition to the Sabbaths of the Eternal, … which you will give to the Eternal. This refers to birds and flour offerings, to add all of them to be brought on the holiday. “I could think that this is voluntary; the verse says, these you shall do on your festive occasions, ‘these’ are established as duty, that all of them be brought on the holiday. I could think on any holiday of his choosing; the verse says, you shall come there and bring there. If to permit, it already was permitted. If to establish, it already was established. Then why is it said, you shall come there and bring there? This refers to the first holiday which happens to come his way. I could think that one of these passed, he transgressed because ‘do not delay’? The verse says, these you shall do on your festive occasions; he does not transgress because of ‘do not delay’ until the holidays of a full year have passed by him. Rebbi Simeon says three holidays in order. How is this? If he vowed before Passover, only if Passover, and Pentecost, and Tabernacles passed by him. If he vowed before Pentecost, only if Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and Passover, and Pentecost, and Tabernacles passed by him. If he vowed before Tabernacles, only if Tabernacles, and Passover, and Pentecost, and Tabernacles passed by him.”

It is written, in addition to the Sabbaths of the Eternal, and in addition to your gifts, etc., which you will give to the Eternal. For I could think that on a holiday one brings only the holiday sacrifices; from where that sacrifices by a single person or by a community which were dedicated for the holiday shall be brought on the holiday? The verse says, in addition to the Sabbaths of the Eternal, … which you will give to the Eternal. This refers to birds and flour offerings, to add all of them to be brought on the holiday. “I could think that this is voluntary; the verse says, these you shall do on your festive occasions, ‘these’ are established as duty, that all of them be brought on the holiday. I could think on any holiday of his choosing; the verse says, you shall come there and bring there. If to permit, it already was permitted. If to establish, it already was established. Then why is it said, you shall come there and bring there? This refers to the first holiday which happens to come his way. I could think that one of these passed, he transgressed because ‘do not delay’? The verse says, these you shall do on your festive occasions; he does not transgress because of ‘do not delay’ until the holidays of a full year have passed by him. Rebbi Simeon says three holidays in order. How is this? If he vowed before Passover, only if Passover, and Pentecost, and Tabernacles passed by him. If he vowed before Pentecost, only if Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and Passover, and Pentecost, and Tabernacles passed by him. If he vowed before Tabernacles, only if Tabernacles, and Passover, and Pentecost, and Tabernacles passed by him.”

HALAKHAH: There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on the Day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. There are Tannaim who state, every item is judged on its proper time and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. Our Mishnah follows him who said, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time, as we have stated: “and on Tabernacles they are judged about water.” The words of Rav imply that all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day, since it is stated in the blowing prayer of Rav: “This is the day, the beginning of Your works, remembrance of the First Day, for it is a decree for Israel, a law for the God of Jacob. On it will be proclaimed for countries which one will be for war, and which one for peace, which one for famine, and which one for plenty. And creatures will be counted on it, to remember them for life or for death.” This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, an individual is judged every moment. What is the reason? You are counting him in the mornings; in moments You are examining him. You are counting him in the mornings, this refers to his provisions; in moments You are examining him, this refers to his food. The Elder Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi: King and public are judged every day. What is the reason? To look after the right of His servant and of His people Israel; each day’s affairs on each day. Rebbi Levi said, He will judge the dry land in equity, will pass judgment over peoples in straightness. The Holy One, praise to Him, judges Israel during daytime when they are occupied earning merit, and the nations during the night, when they are resting from evil deeds. Samuel said, as He judges Israel so he judges the nations. How does Samuel confirm that He will pass judgment over peoples in straightness? He judges them according to the qualified among them; He remembers for them the deeds of Jethro, he remembers for them the deeds of Raḥab the prostitute.

HALAKHAH: There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on the Day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. There are Tannaim who state, every item is judged on its proper time and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. Our Mishnah follows him who said, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time, as we have stated: “and on Tabernacles they are judged about water.” The words of Rav imply that all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day, since it is stated in the blowing prayer of Rav: “This is the day, the beginning of Your works, remembrance of the First Day, for it is a decree for Israel, a law for the God of Jacob. On it will be proclaimed for countries which one will be for war, and which one for peace, which one for famine, and which one for plenty. And creatures will be counted on it, to remember them for life or for death.” This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, an individual is judged every moment. What is the reason? You are counting him in the mornings; in moments You are examining him. You are counting him in the mornings, this refers to his provisions; in moments You are examining him, this refers to his food. The Elder Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi: King and public are judged every day. What is the reason? To look after the right of His servant and of His people Israel; each day’s affairs on each day. Rebbi Levi said, He will judge the dry land in equity, will pass judgment over peoples in straightness. The Holy One, praise to Him, judges Israel during daytime when they are occupied earning merit, and the nations during the night, when they are resting from evil deeds. Samuel said, as He judges Israel so he judges the nations. How does Samuel confirm that He will pass judgment over peoples in straightness? He judges them according to the qualified among them; He remembers for them the deeds of Jethro, he remembers for them the deeds of Raḥab the prostitute.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year. You shall sanctify years, [but] one does not sanctfy months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What means sanctified? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts with the most senior person. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the Court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the year one starts from the side. Rebbi Zebida said, but this lower house do not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rebbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rebbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but “in intercalation”, that the Sages added thirty days to it [and intercalated it.] Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rebbi Ḥanina started, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqisch summed up. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi summed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai started, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose summed up. Rebbi Cahana was ordained before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rebbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.

It was stated: And not the key; the House of Hillel permit. And Rav Hoshaia the son of Rav Isaac said, this refers to a key of edibles, but not to a key of implements. But did not Rebbi Abbahu sit and teach, and a key of a jewel box in his hand? He had pepper inside.

Rebbi Jonah said, what you are saying refers to washing to wear; but washing to mend? So we are saying, this washerman is forbidden to work in his trade? Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, “the week in which the Ninth of Av falls one is forbidden to barber and to launder, but on Thursday one is permitted for the honor of the Sabbath.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Hamnuna, it was repeated regarding (addition) [barbering.] Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. If the Ninth of Av falls on a Sabbath, both weeks are permitted. What is afterwards? Rebbi Joḥanan said, afterwards is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, afterwards is permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached it to the Sepphoreans but they did not accept it. Rebbi Immi said to Rebbi [Yasa]. Does not the nephew of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya disagree with him? He answered, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, afterwards is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, afterwards is permitted. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish explain it? He explains it if the Ninth of Av falls on a Sabbath, and one cannot infer anything. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar announced at the end of the Ninth of Av, the barbers shall open, any who has to eulogize may eulogize. It is written, I shall eliminate all her enjoyment, her holiday, her month, her Sabbath, and all her feast. The Southerners have the custom of ḥer holiday, the Sepphoreans have the custom of her month, the Tiberians have the custom of her week. The Rabbis of Tiberias changed to follow the Rabbis of Sepphoris.

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

HALAKHAH: In all cases where we are stating “if it falls” it refers to the Fourteenth. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “walled cities the next day.” Rebbi Yose said, there is no “if it falls on Monday”, [there is no] “if it falls on the Sabbath.” If it falls on Monday, the Great Fast Day is on Sunday; if it falls on the Sabbath, the Great Fast Day falls on Friday.

MISHNAH: The only difference between holiday and Sabbath refers to preparation of food. The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaim and those rabbis? Prohibitions without extirpation. Rebbi Judan said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaim think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the adolescent girls who can claim a fine” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it according to everybody if it refers to a bastard male who sleeps with a bastard girl But is his brother’s wife not his sister-in-law? Explain it that the man’s brother had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and his brother came and raped her.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sons of Noah brought well-being offerings. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the Sons of Noah brought elevation offerings. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, and Abel also brought from the firstlings of his sheep and of their excellence. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? From their luxurious ones. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, he sent the young men of Israel and they offered elevation offerings, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Entire in their bodies, without stripping and partitioning. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: [Is it not written, Jethro, Moses’s in-law, took elevation and well-being offerings for God?] What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Following him who said that Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Jehudah the great one and Rebbi Yannai disagreed. One said, Jethro came before the giving of the Torah; but the other one said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. We did not know who said what. Let us hear from the following: Jethro, the priest of Midyan, Moses’s in-law, heard. What did he hear? Ḥizqiah said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. Rebbi Joshua said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. [Rebbi Levi said, he heard the war of Amaleq.] The Great Jehudah said, he heard the giving of the Torah. Therefore he must be the one who said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the following supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Awake North, and come South. Awake North refers to the elevation sacrifice which is slaughtered in the North. What means “awake”? What was sleeping and awoke. And come South refers to well-being sacrifices which are slaughtered in the South. What means “come”? Something new. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? When the diasporas in the North awake and build the Temple in the South. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: also the following verse supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is the teaching about the elevation sacrifice. This is the elevation sacrifice which the Sons of Noah were sacrificing. When he comes to well-being sacrifice he says, this is the teaching about the well-being sacrifice. It is not written “which one brought” but shall bring from now on..

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sons of Noah brought well-being offerings. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the Sons of Noah brought elevation offerings. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, and Abel also brought from the firstlings of his sheep and of their excellence. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? From their luxurious ones. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, he sent the young men of Israel and they offered elevation offerings, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Entire in their bodies, without stripping and partitioning. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: [Is it not written, Jethro, Moses’s in-law, took elevation and well-being offerings for God?] What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Following him who said that Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Jehudah the great one and Rebbi Yannai disagreed. One said, Jethro came before the giving of the Torah; but the other one said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. We did not know who said what. Let us hear from the following: Jethro, the priest of Midyan, Moses’s in-law, heard. What did he hear? Ḥizqiah said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. Rebbi Joshua said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. [Rebbi Levi said, he heard the war of Amaleq.] The Great Jehudah said, he heard the giving of the Torah. Therefore he must be the one who said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the following supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Awake North, and come South. Awake North refers to the elevation sacrifice which is slaughtered in the North. What means “awake”? What was sleeping and awoke. And come South refers to well-being sacrifices which are slaughtered in the South. What means “come”? Something new. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? When the diasporas in the North awake and build the Temple in the South. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: also the following verse supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is the teaching about the elevation sacrifice. This is the elevation sacrifice which the Sons of Noah were sacrificing. When he comes to well-being sacrifice he says, this is the teaching about the well-being sacrifice. It is not written “which one brought” but shall bring from now on..

It was stated: “There is about the sacrifice of appearance what does not apply to the festival sacrifice, and about the festival sacrifice what does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance. For the sacrifice of appearance is totally for the High; this does not apply to the festival sacrifice. The festival sacrifice was in use before the Word and after the Word; this does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance.” Was the festival sacrifice in use before the Word? The language of festival sacrifice was in use before the Word: send My people that they present Me with festival sacrifices in the desert.“ And joy applies to matters which are his property and matters which are others’ property; whether matters usually used for the purpose or matters not usually used for the purpose. But those apply only to his own property and matters usually used for the purpose.” Rebbi Yose said, and why do we not say, anybody liable for a sacrifice of appearance is liable for joy but there are those liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance: “Women are liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, and you shall enjoy, even from a butcher shop. Rebbi Eleazar said, joy is mentioned here and joy in mentioned there. Since the joy mentioned there refers to well-being sacrifices so also joy mentioned here refers to well-being sacrifices. Rav Ḥuna ate (deflated things) [simply] all seven days.

It was stated: “There is about the sacrifice of appearance what does not apply to the festival sacrifice, and about the festival sacrifice what does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance. For the sacrifice of appearance is totally for the High; this does not apply to the festival sacrifice. The festival sacrifice was in use before the Word and after the Word; this does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance.” Was the festival sacrifice in use before the Word? The language of festival sacrifice was in use before the Word: send My people that they present Me with festival sacrifices in the desert.“ And joy applies to matters which are his property and matters which are others’ property; whether matters usually used for the purpose or matters not usually used for the purpose. But those apply only to his own property and matters usually used for the purpose.” Rebbi Yose said, and why do we not say, anybody liable for a sacrifice of appearance is liable for joy but there are those liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance: “Women are liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, and you shall enjoy, even from a butcher shop. Rebbi Eleazar said, joy is mentioned here and joy in mentioned there. Since the joy mentioned there refers to well-being sacrifices so also joy mentioned here refers to well-being sacrifices. Rav Ḥuna ate (deflated things) [simply] all seven days.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure, and it is said there, for you cannot carry it. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure, and it is said there, for you cannot carry it. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure, and it is said there, for you cannot carry it. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure, and it is said there, for you cannot carry it. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday.

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state, “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.

“For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure.” “To make sancta impure, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, to disqualify sancta.” How? Following Rebbi Joshua? As we have stated there, “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree, and one hand makes the other one impure, the words of Rebbi Joshua.” And Rebbi Joshua says more than Rebbi, since what Rebbi said refers to sancta, but Rebbi Joshua refers to heave.

“For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure.” “To make sancta impure, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, to disqualify sancta.” How? Following Rebbi Joshua? As we have stated there, “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree, and one hand makes the other one impure, the words of Rebbi Joshua.” And Rebbi Joshua says more than Rebbi, since what Rebbi said refers to sancta, but Rebbi Joshua refers to heave.

HALAKHAH: In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, “normally”, he fills his needle. “Staples”, stitch by stitch. Rebbi Joḥanan said, “normally”, stitch by stitch. “Staples”, he jumps. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: The cobblers are stapling on the holiday. If you would say stitch by stitch, that is what they are doing professionally. But we must hold that they sew irregularly. Who is an individual and who is a professional? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one who matches seams is a professional, but any who does not match seams is an individual. Rebbi Simon said, the Mishnah refers to those who sew pockets.

Does Abba Shaul hold with Rebbi Aqiba? Since Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! What Rebbi Aqiba said refers to a sister-in-law who whored. What Abba Shaul said refers to his sister-in-law. It comes like Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta since Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He ploughed five times and planted five saplings and had intercourse using a bedsheet. These are they: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eudaimon ben Rebbi Yose.

Does Abba Shaul hold with Rebbi Aqiba? Since Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! What Rebbi Aqiba said refers to a sister-in-law who whored. What Abba Shaul said refers to his sister-in-law. It comes like Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta since Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He ploughed five times and planted five saplings and had intercourse using a bedsheet. These are they: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eudaimon ben Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “If there were two brothers, one of them died”, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, and you say so? May one permit levirate with the “bespoken” woman? One should suspect that “bespeaking” does not acquire; then he would be guilty because of “wife of his brother who did not live in his world.” Can the “bespoken” one perform ḥalîṣah? Should one not suspect that “bespeaking” does acquire; then the second {widow] is a candidate for [the third brother]. It must be that Rebbi Simeon refers to the first case.

It was stated: “The first son could be High Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons. This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.” In the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.

It is written: “Any slave who is a man bought by money.” You circumcise by force a slave who is a man, you do not circumcise by force a son who is a man. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, does this imply that you may circumcise a minor by force? Even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is so. “If he found there a foundling. If he immersed him as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; [if he immersed him] as a free person, he circumcises him as a free person.” Rebbi Joḥanan asked, as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Abbahu and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia did not say so, but “any slave who is a man bought by money.” If your slave is a man, you circumcise him by force. If your son is a man, you do not circumcise him by force. This refers to what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: If somebody buys uncircumcised slaves from Gentiles on condition that he will circumcise them, in any case if they are slaves who are men, you circumcise them by force. On condition that he will not circumcise them, he is like a son who is a man, you do not circumcise him by force.

There, we have stated: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month’s child of the first [brother] or a seven-month’s of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for a possible sin.” It was stated: “The first son could be High Priest, any second son possibly is a bastard. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, there is no such thing as a possible bastard.” Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob agrees in cases of doubt of Samaritans and desecrated persons. This refers to what we have stated there: “Ten classes returned from Babylonia.” In the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, eight. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, nine. In the opinion of the rabbis, ten.

Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said that four congregations are called “congregation”, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites, the cogregation of converts. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, but is it not written, “one injured in his testicles should not come”? That refers to bodily blemishes. But is it not written, “children that will be born to them, the third generation shall come from them”? That is a positive commandment. But the rabbis said, there are three congregations, the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites; “they shall not come, they shall not come, they shall not come.”

HALAKHAH: “If she married by a decision of the court,” etc. Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. This means that Rebbi Yose does not disagree about the other matters.

HALAKHAH: “If she married by a decision of the court,” etc. Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. This means that Rebbi Yose does not disagree about the other matters.

Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter.

Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter.