restrictions

In a place where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Pesah until midday one may do work; where it is the custom not to do work, one may not do work. He who goes from a place where they work to a place where they do not work, or from a place where they do not work to a place where they do work, they place upon him the restrictions of the place from where he departed and the restrictions of the place to where he has gone. And a man must not act differently [from local custom] on account of the quarrels [which would ensue].

In a place where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Pesah until midday one may do work; where it is the custom not to do work, one may not do work. He who goes from a place where they work to a place where they do not work, or from a place where they do not work to a place where they do work, they place upon him the restrictions of the place from where he departed and the restrictions of the place to where he has gone. And a man must not act differently [from local custom] on account of the quarrels [which would ensue].

If the child of a priest’s wife was mixed-up with the child of her female slave, behold both may eat terumah and [together] they receive one share at the threshing-floor. They may not defile themselves for the dead nor may they marry any women whether these are eligible [for marriage with a priest] or ineligible. If when they grew up, the mixed-up children freed one another they may marry women who are eligible for marriage with a priest and they may not defile themselves for the dead. If they defiled themselves, they do not receive the penalty of forty lashes. They may not eat terumah, but if they did eat they need not pay compensation either for the principal or [the additional] fifth. They are not to receive a share at the threshing-floor, but they may sell [their own] terumah and the proceeds are theirs. They receive no share in the holy things of the temple, and no holy things are given to them but others do not take their holy things from them. They are exempt from [giving to any priest] the shoulder, the cheeks and the maw, while the firstling of either of them should remain in the pasture until it contracts a blemish. The restrictions relating to priests and the restrictions relating to Israelites are both imposed upon them.

If the child of a priest’s wife was mixed-up with the child of her female slave, behold both may eat terumah and [together] they receive one share at the threshing-floor. They may not defile themselves for the dead nor may they marry any women whether these are eligible [for marriage with a priest] or ineligible. If when they grew up, the mixed-up children freed one another they may marry women who are eligible for marriage with a priest and they may not defile themselves for the dead. If they defiled themselves, they do not receive the penalty of forty lashes. They may not eat terumah, but if they did eat they need not pay compensation either for the principal or [the additional] fifth. They are not to receive a share at the threshing-floor, but they may sell [their own] terumah and the proceeds are theirs. They receive no share in the holy things of the temple, and no holy things are given to them but others do not take their holy things from them. They are exempt from [giving to any priest] the shoulder, the cheeks and the maw, while the firstling of either of them should remain in the pasture until it contracts a blemish. The restrictions relating to priests and the restrictions relating to Israelites are both imposed upon them.

If one of [the two husbands] was an Israelite and the other a priest: He may only marry a woman who is eligible to marry a priest. He may not defile himself for the dead, but if he did defile himself he does not suffer the penalty of forty stripes. He may not eat terumah, but if he did eat he need not pay compensation either for the principal or [for the additional] fifth. He does not receive a share at the threshing-floor, but he may sell [his own] terumah and the profits are his. He receives no share in the holy things of the temple, no holy things are given to him, but he is not deprived of his own. He is exempt from [giving to any priest] the shoulder, the cheeks and the maw, while his firstling must remain in the pasture until it contracts a blemish. The restrictions relating to priests and the restrictions relating to Israelites are imposed upon him. If the two [husbands] were priests: He must be an onen mourner for them and they must be onenim mourners for him, but he may not defile himself for them, nor may they defile themselves for him. He may not inherit from them, but they may inherit from him. He is exempt if he strikes or curses the one or the other. He goes up [to serve] in the Temple watch of the one as well as of the other, but he does not receive a share [in the offerings]. If both served in the same watch, he receives a single portion.

If one of [the two husbands] was an Israelite and the other a priest: He may only marry a woman who is eligible to marry a priest. He may not defile himself for the dead, but if he did defile himself he does not suffer the penalty of forty stripes. He may not eat terumah, but if he did eat he need not pay compensation either for the principal or [for the additional] fifth. He does not receive a share at the threshing-floor, but he may sell [his own] terumah and the profits are his. He receives no share in the holy things of the temple, no holy things are given to him, but he is not deprived of his own. He is exempt from [giving to any priest] the shoulder, the cheeks and the maw, while his firstling must remain in the pasture until it contracts a blemish. The restrictions relating to priests and the restrictions relating to Israelites are imposed upon him. If the two [husbands] were priests: He must be an onen mourner for them and they must be onenim mourners for him, but he may not defile himself for them, nor may they defile themselves for him. He may not inherit from them, but they may inherit from him. He is exempt if he strikes or curses the one or the other. He goes up [to serve] in the Temple watch of the one as well as of the other, but he does not receive a share [in the offerings]. If both served in the same watch, he receives a single portion.

If one made up a piece of material from two handbreadths of cloth and one of sack-cloth, or of three of sack-cloth and one of leather or four of leather and one of matting, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. If the piece of material was made up of five handbreadths of matting and one of leather or four of leather and one of sack-cloth, or three of sack-cloth and one of cloth it is susceptible to uncleanness. This is the general rule: if the material added is subject to greater restrictions it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if the material added was subject to lesser restrictions it is not susceptible.

If one made up a piece of material from two handbreadths of cloth and one of sack-cloth, or of three of sack-cloth and one of leather or four of leather and one of matting, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. If the piece of material was made up of five handbreadths of matting and one of leather or four of leather and one of sack-cloth, or three of sack-cloth and one of cloth it is susceptible to uncleanness. This is the general rule: if the material added is subject to greater restrictions it is susceptible to uncleanness, but if the material added was subject to lesser restrictions it is not susceptible.

There are [laws] that apply to the quick flesh that do not apply to the spreading, while other restrictions apply to the spreading and do not apply to the quick flesh. That quick flesh causes uncleanness at the beginning, it causes uncleanness whatever its color, and it is never a sign of cleanness. There are [laws] that apply to the spreading, for the spreading causes uncleanness however small its extent, it causes uncleanness in all forms of negaim and also where it is outside the leprosy sign, and these laws do not apply to the quick flesh.

If a bright spot was of the size of a split bean and a string extended from it, if it was two hairs in breadth, it is subject to the restrictions in respect of white hair and spreading, but not to that in respect of its quick flesh. If there were two bright spots and a streak extended from one to the other, if it was two hairs in breadth, it combines them; but if not, it does not combine them.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.

That means after the divine voice was heard. But before the divine voice was heard, it was said of anyone who wanted to restrict himself and follow the restrictions both of the school of Shammai and that of Hillel: (Eccl. 2:14) “the fool walks in darkness;” anyone who followed the leniencies of both of them was called an evildoer. But one had to follow either the leniencies and restrictions of one school or the leniencies and restrictions of the other. That was before the divine voice was heard. But after the divine voice was heard, practice always follows the school of Hillel and everyone who transgresses the rulings of the school of Hillel merits death. We have stated: “A divine voice came and said: Both of them are the words of the Living God but practice follows the school of Hillel”. Where was the divine voice heard? Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The divine voice came in Jabneh.

That means after the divine voice was heard. But before the divine voice was heard, it was said of anyone who wanted to restrict himself and follow the restrictions both of the school of Shammai and that of Hillel: (Eccl. 2:14) “the fool walks in darkness;” anyone who followed the leniencies of both of them was called an evildoer. But one had to follow either the leniencies and restrictions of one school or the leniencies and restrictions of the other. That was before the divine voice was heard. But after the divine voice was heard, practice always follows the school of Hillel and everyone who transgresses the rulings of the school of Hillel merits death. We have stated: “A divine voice came and said: Both of them are the words of the Living God but practice follows the school of Hillel”. Where was the divine voice heard? Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The divine voice came in Jabneh.

That means after the divine voice was heard. But before the divine voice was heard, it was said of anyone who wanted to restrict himself and follow the restrictions both of the school of Shammai and that of Hillel: (Eccl. 2:14) “the fool walks in darkness;” anyone who followed the leniencies of both of them was called an evildoer. But one had to follow either the leniencies and restrictions of one school or the leniencies and restrictions of the other. That was before the divine voice was heard. But after the divine voice was heard, practice always follows the school of Hillel and everyone who transgresses the rulings of the school of Hillel merits death. We have stated: “A divine voice came and said: Both of them are the words of the Living God but practice follows the school of Hillel”. Where was the divine voice heard? Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The divine voice came in Jabneh.

It was stated: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity.” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan; just as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the little one is a restriction, so “vat of olives” is a restriction. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: They disagree about connections. Because everywhere “biting” is a connection, squeezing is not a connection. But here even squeezing is a connection; hence from the Torah they are enabled. Rebbi Jonah met Rebbi Jeremiah and asked him, did you say that? He said, that is not from me, even their enablings are restrictions. Did we not state: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity?” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? Then the olive vat should be from the Torah! What about this? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, sap is counted as a fluid.

HALAKHAH: : There, we have stated: “They can be trusted about gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah at harvest time.” And here you say so? There, his assertion is for exemption, but here his assertion is for obligation. And we have stated so: “If his assertion is for exemption, he may be trusted in restrictions.” But here, he can be trusted even if his explanation is to make it easier.

It was stated: “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits from me, they are from an orlah tree, they are from a vineyard in its fourth year,’ cannot be believed. If he says, ‘I brought them from a certain Gentile,’ he may be trusted for restrictions, the words of Rebbi. The Sages say, the words of a Gentile are irrelevant.” Rebbi Judan asked, what if he calls out when he is uninformed? Rebbi Judan asked, what if one holds that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, since they disagreed: “A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects”?

MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop, and thyme.

We understand “one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans and animals” that it is forbidden to boil them to a pulp. We have stated: If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as wood and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood? Where do we hold? If he gave him the money and afterwards took it up, he paid for wood. If he took it up and afterwards gave him the money, he paid for food. We must hold that he gave him the money and afterwards took it up; this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that [transfer of] money does not mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for food. According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that [transfer of] money does mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for wood.

Paragraph. “One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt.” There, we have stated: “One who made a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food.” A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse states that “roasted” is called “cooked” as it is said: They cooked the Pesaḥ in fire. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, as is the rule. A Mishnah [states] that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? If one said, a qonam that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

MISHNAH: If a crawling animal was found in the Temple, a Cohen carries it outside in his belt in order not to continue the impurity, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Jehudah says, with wooden tongs in order not to increase impurity. From where does one remove it? From the Temple Hall, and the vestibule, and from between the vestibule and the altar, the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Nannas. Rebbi Aqiba says, from a place where one is liable for extirpation in case of criminal intent and a purification offering if in error one removes it; at all other places one places a wine cooler over it. Rebbi Simeon said, at a place where the Sages permitted it to you they gave it from your own since they only permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restrictions.

MISHNAH: In a place where one was used to work on Passover Eve before noon one works; in a place where one was used not to work on Passover Eve before noon one does not work. If one goes from a place where he works to one where he does not work, or from a place where he does not work to one where he works, one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes, but a person should not change because of the controversy.

MISHNAH: In a place where one was used to work on Passover Eve before noon one works; in a place where one was used not to work on Passover Eve before noon one does not work. If one goes from a place where he works to one where he does not work, or from a place where he does not work to one where he works, one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes, but a person should not change because of the controversy.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

It was stated, “a full gulp.” Does this disagree? A full gulp, what is possible as one gulp. It was stated in the name of the House of Shammai, a full gulp is equivalent to a quartarius. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, why was this not stated as one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and restrictions of the House of Hillel? He told him, because of the gulp of Ben Avatiah which contained more than a quartarius.

“About a wick three things were said as restrictions and three as leniencies. The following three were said as restrictions: One does not make it new on the holiday, nor does one cut one into two pieces, nor does one singe it by fire. The following three were said as leniencies: One softens it, and soaks it in oil, and divides it into two lights by fire.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he needs both of them. It was stated, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Bar Delaia: He brings two candles, introduces it into both of them, and separates them by fire into two candles. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Ḥinena bar Idi in the name of Rav: One cleans the wick on a holiday.

“About a wick three things were said as restrictions and three as leniencies. The following three were said as restrictions: One does not make it new on the holiday, nor does one cut one into two pieces, nor does one singe it by fire. The following three were said as leniencies: One softens it, and soaks it in oil, and divides it into two lights by fire.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he needs both of them. It was stated, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Bar Delaia: He brings two candles, introduces it into both of them, and separates them by fire into two candles. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Ḥinena bar Idi in the name of Rav: One cleans the wick on a holiday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard,” etc. “That the castrate does not perform ḥalîṣah” etc. “Similarly, if the brothers performed ḥalîṣah for a she-ram,” etc. What is a sun-castrate? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, anybody whom the sun did not see qualified even for one hour. If somebody stretched out his hand and castrated [the not yet born baby] in the womb, everybody agrees that [when born] he is prohibited from marrying into the congregation and he cannot perform either ḥalîṣah or levirate. One imposes upon him the restrictions of both castrate by human action and sun-castrate in this disagreement.

“A sly wicked man.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Huna: That is one who chooses leniencies for himself and teaches restrictions to others. In this matter, it was stated: “About anybody who wants to take upon himself the stringencies both of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel it was said: ‘The silly one walks in darkness’. The leniencies of both of them, he is called wicked. Only either following the words of the House of Shammai in their leniencies and stringencies, or following the words of the House of Hillel in their leniencies and stringencies.” That is, before there came the disembodied voice. But after the disembodied voice was heard, “practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” And any who transgresses the words of the House of Hillel is deserving of death. It was stated: There came the disembodied voice and said: “Both of them are the words of the Living God, but practice follows the House of Hillel forever.” Where was the disembodied voice heard? Rav Bebai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The disembodied voice was heard at Yabneh.

“A Samaritan.” That follows him who said, a Samaritan is a like full Jew. But for him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, it is not so. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect. Even if you say, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, why are Samaritans disqualified? Not because of a Gentile and a slave? If a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. But a bastard girl can claim a fine! For restrictions or family relations you consider him a Gentile or a slave who had intercourse with a Jewish woman; the child is a bastard. But for a fine you consider this as a Jew having intercourse with a Gentile woman, in which case the child is a Gentile.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says sacrifice, elevation offering, or flour offering,” etc. Everybody agrees this sacrifice is permitted, like a sacrifice is forbidden. Where do they disagree? Sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘this sacrifice’ and is permitted; but the rabbis say, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘like a sacrifice’ and is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah said to them: Do you not agree that one who said “oath” is like one who said “this oath” and is forbidden? And here he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘this sacrifice’ and is permitted! But the rabbis throw restrictions on it. One who said “oath” is like one who said “this oath” and is forbidden. But here, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘like a sacrifice’ and is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food,” etc. A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ” etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

HALAKHAH: A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ”, etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked: “Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Rebbi Joshia also agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

(The community) [A person] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the abyss, one sends him on a far journey. (A nazir) [The community] who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should be presented in their doubt; Rebbi Hoshaia said, it should be made in impurity. The great Rebbi Hoshaia also agrees that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referrred only to restrictions.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar ben Parṭa said three things before the Sages and they confirmed his words: [People in] a city which was surrounded by palisades, on a ship in emergency at sea, or a person about to be judged, are presumed to be alive. But on [people in] a city conquered from palisades, a ship lost at sea, or a person led to execution, one puts the restrictions of the living and the dead: neither an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen nor a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may eat heave.

They added three additional cases: One who was dragged away by a wild animal, one who was swept away by a river, and one buried by a collapse. One puts the restrictions of the living and the dead on her: neither an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen nor a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may eat heave.

The condition of validity is stated here and was stated there. It was necessary to state it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that here it is invalid because of the restrictions connected with adultery but there, since no restrictions connected with adultery are involved, it would be valid. Or if it had been stated there but not here, we would have said that there it is invalid since one comes to collect money based on that document but here, where one does not collect money, it would be valid. Therefore, it was necessary both to state it here and to state it there.

The condition of validity is stated here and was stated there. It was necessary to state it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that here it is invalid because of the restrictions connected with adultery but there, since no restrictions connected with adultery are involved, it would be valid. Or if it had been stated there but not here, we would have said that there it is invalid since one comes to collect money based on that document but here, where one does not collect money, it would be valid. Therefore, it was necessary both to state it here and to state it there.

If he wrote it on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced. Rebbi Eleazar said, she is not divorced. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminary married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminary married, she is divorced. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restrictions”? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage, but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the [written] conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler.

If he wrote it on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced. Rebbi Eleazar said, she is not divorced. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminary married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminary married, she is divorced. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restrictions”? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage, but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the [written] conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler.

If he wrote it on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced. Rebbi Eleazar said, she is not divorced. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminary married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminary married, she is divorced. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restrictions”? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage, but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the [written] conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler.

If he wrote it on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced. Rebbi Eleazar said, she is not divorced. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminary married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminary married, she is divorced. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restrictions”? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage, but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the [written] conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rebbi Simeon [ben] Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If [the buyer] insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac did (not) say there: You should know that Rebbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rebbi Ze‘ira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rebbi Simeon [ben] Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If [the buyer] insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac did (not) say there: You should know that Rebbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rebbi Ze‘ira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rebbi Simeon [ben] Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If [the buyer] insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac did (not) say there: You should know that Rebbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rebbi Ze‘ira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rebbi Simeon [ben] Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If [the buyer] insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac did (not) say there: You should know that Rebbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rebbi Ze‘ira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rebbi Simeon [ben] Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If [the buyer] insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac did (not) say there: You should know that Rebbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rebbi Ze‘ira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled.” etc. A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable. Everywhere it is said that a restriction after a restriction is an addition, but here it is said, a restriction after a restriction is to reduce? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is different here since there is written a restriction after a restriction after a restriction.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, {but one dependent} on the Court is not liable.

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.

“If it cannot be determined then she shall observe for both male and female, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, anything which has no human form is no child.” Everywhere we stated “she shall observe for male and female, fourteen [days] impure and 26 pure; one puts upon her the restrictions of the male and of the female. That means, for her house. But for pure food, she shall observe for a female [birth].

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarries a sexless, or a hermaphrodite,” etc. In all cases in which we have stated “she shall observe for a male and a female,” it means 14 [days] impure and 26 pure; one puts on her the restrictions of both male and female. That means, for her house. But for pure food she observes the rules of a female [birth]. “If it was a sexless and a male, or a hermaphrodite and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female,” one takes into account the possibility of a male. “A sexless and a female, or a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe for a female exclusively,” does one not take into account the possibility of a male? This implies that if she gave birth to a male and a female, or a female and a male, she observes the rules for a female.

And the question of whether [the restrictions of the Sabbatical Year apply to] wood that is used for heating is a dispute between Tannas, as it has been taught: The produce of the Sabbatical Year may not be used either for steeping or for washing.R. Yose say: they may be so used.

And in reference to this, Rabbah b. Huna said: The festival involves no mourning restrictions in the case of a scholar, still less Hanukkah and Purim.

He who is in deep mourning and he who lacks atonement etc. What is the reason? Seeing that hitherto they were under restrictions, our Rabbis compel them to be dipped.