restrictive

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Excrement until it is hardened like bone, urine all the time it makes moist. Ganiva said: All the time that its impression is visible. Samuel said: Until its surface is hardened. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Until its surface is hardened. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav: Excrement is forbidden even if it is hard like bone. Samuel said: Until its surface is hardened. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Until its surface is hardened. Ḥizqiah said: Rebbi Abba is more restrictive for urine than for excrement? Rebbi Mana said to him: From that of Ganiva; he said to him: Even if it is hard like bone it is forbidden because its matter exists; urine’s matter no longer exists

Thieves stole the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr at night. She was hidden with them for three days during which she did not eat anything. After three days, they took counsel to return her to her master. They said, let us send her to her master lest she die with us and foul up the cave. They let her out; she stood at her master’s door and started braying. He said to them, open to that poor creature because for three days now she did not taste anything. They opened for her and she entered. He said to them, give her something to eat. They put oats before her but she did not eat. They said to him, rabbi, she does not want to eat. He asked them, did you put it in order? They said: Yes. He asked them, did you remove its demay? They said, did the rabbi not teach us: “He who buys for seeds or animals, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, or oil to rub vessels, is free from demay.” He said to them, what can we do with this poor creature since she is very restrictive for herself? They removed the demay and she ate.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi commanded his lads: Do not buy me vegetables except from Sisera’s garden. He, may he be remembered for the good stood nearby and said to him: Go tell your teacher that this is not Sisera’s garden; it did belong to a Jew but he killed him and took it away from him. If you want to be restrictive for yourself, permit it to your friend.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Are you not lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles? It is so, we find that the rabbis are lenient for one row and restrictive for rectangles, as it was stated: He who wants to make one row of vegetables in a grain field makes a row 10½ cubits long and six hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Joḥanan said, therein he sows only one kind. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if it is seven wide he sows one hand-breadth on one side, one on the other side, and the remaining five count for both sides, just as Rebbi Zeïra had explained Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there.

What did Rebbi Ismael say about the width? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who encloses it from three sides, requires a full width, Rebbi Ismael who encloses it by two rows, not so much more? What does Rebbi Ismael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who is more lenient here, is restrictive there, Rebbi Ismael, who is more restrictive here, certainly will be restrictive there! No, this is not necessarily so. What does Rebbi Ismael say there about width? As we say there, there is no difference between Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael in matters of width.

What did Rebbi Ismael say about the width? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who encloses it from three sides, requires a full width, Rebbi Ismael who encloses it by two rows, not so much more? What does Rebbi Ismael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who is more lenient here, is restrictive there, Rebbi Ismael, who is more restrictive here, certainly will be restrictive there! No, this is not necessarily so. What does Rebbi Ismael say there about width? As we say there, there is no difference between Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael in matters of width.

What did Rebbi Ismael say about the width? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who encloses it from three sides, requires a full width, Rebbi Ismael who encloses it by two rows, not so much more? What does Rebbi Ismael say about a row of vegetables in a grain field? Now if Rebbi Aqiba, who is more lenient here, is restrictive there, Rebbi Ismael, who is more restrictive here, certainly will be restrictive there! No, this is not necessarily so. What does Rebbi Ismael say there about width? As we say there, there is no difference between Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael in matters of width.

We have stated the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah here, and we have stated it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that just as Rebbi Jehudah who is restrictive here is permissive there, the rabbis who are permissive here certainly will be permissive there. Hence, it is necessary to state there. Or if it was stated there but not here, we would have said that just as the rabbis who are restrictive there are permissive here, Rebbi Jehudah who is permissive there certainly will be permissive here. Hence, it is necessary to state both here and there.

We have stated the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah here, and we have stated it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that just as Rebbi Jehudah who is restrictive here is permissive there, the rabbis who are permissive here certainly will be permissive there. Hence, it is necessary to state there. Or if it was stated there but not here, we would have said that just as the rabbis who are restrictive there are permissive here, Rebbi Jehudah who is permissive there certainly will be permissive here. Hence, it is necessary to state both here and there.

MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables, in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it. If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor.

MISHNAH: Pumpkin in the middle of vegetables goes by the rules of vegetables, in the middle of grain it needs a bet rova‘. If one’s field was sown with grain and he desired to plant there one row of pumpkin, he must allow six hand-breadths to tend it. If it grows, he has to uproot before it. Rebbi Yose said, he allows four cubits to tend it. They said to him, are you making this more restrictive than for a vine? He said to them, we find that this case is more restrictive than that of a vine. For a single vine one allows six hand-breadths to tend it, but for a single pumpkin a bet rova‘. Rebbi Meir says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet seah one should not sow in that bet seah. Rebbi Yose, the son of the Snatcher from Efrat, says in the name of Rebbi Ismael, if there are three pumpkin plants in a bet kor one should not sow in that bet kor.

Cahana said, they made it like the start of its planting. The House of Shammai say, 24 at the start of planting, 24 at its destruction. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai are more restrictive in its destruction than at the start of its planting. At the start of its planting 16, at its destruction 24. In every case, the House of Shammai add one third: The circumference of a vineyard, according to the House of Shammai 18, according to the House of Hillel 12. But did we not state: “The circumference of a vineyard, the House of Shammai say 16 cubits, the House of Hillel say 12 cubits.” Some want to say, deduct from this four cubits for tending, there remain 12 cubits according to the House of Shammai and 8 following the House of Hillel.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they were more restrictive inside than outside. Rebbi Zeïra said, when I was still there, I explained it that inside eight [are required], outside sixteen: From four cubits to eight, it is forbidden and sanctifies, from eight to sixteen it is forbidden but does not sanctify.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say that one row constitutes a vineyard, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that one row constitutes a vineyard. What do you want to say? A large vineyard is forbidden by eight, a small vineyard is forbidden by eight! Rebbi Judan did not say so but taught that eight cubits is forbidden, eight cubits plus any length is permitted. Some want to state: “But if someone newly planted sixteen by sixteen, it would be permitted with eight cubits.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the statement of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is like that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai are more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted, so Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob is more restrictive when it is dried up than when it is planted.

“ Rebbi Meïr said to them: I am more restrictive with the proceeds than with the main [produce]. For one may light with Sabbatical oil but if one sold it and bought oil with it he may not light with it.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one exchanged oil for oil, both of them are forbidden. What can he do? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: He barters both for profane [oil]. If he exchanged wine for oil; just as you say that he may not anoint with wine so he may not light with oil. If he exchanged leaves for sprouts, just as you say that leaves are subject to removal so sprouts are subject to removal. If he exchanged human food for animal feed, just as one may not make a wound dressing from human food so he may not make a wound dressing from animal feed. We also have stated: “One may sell human food and animal feed to buy human food with the proceeds,animal feed to buy animal feed and certainly human food (to buy animal feed).”

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when is that? If he has no other, different profession. But if he has another, different profession it is permitted.” How is this implemented? If he was sitting idle all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, if he has another profession on the side he is acceptable, otherwise he is unacceptable. But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is permitted. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was publicly praised for presenting a tradition in the name of a younger person. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah is restrictive. How is this implemented? If he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycles but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, if he has another profession on the side he is permitted, otherwise he is forbidden. (But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycles and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is forbidden.) With this we are not concerned. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was publicly praised for presenting a tradition in the name of a younger person. Here also should it be so? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the government is not oppressive, here the government is oppressive.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi commanded his student: Do not buy me vegetables except from Sisera’s garden. He, may he be remembered for the good, stood nearby and said to him: Go tell your teacher that this is not Sisera’s garden; it did belong to a Jew but he killed him and took it away from him. If you want to be restrictive for yourself, be made equal to your friend.

There we have stated: “Rebbi Yose says, in six matters are the House of Shammai lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive: Fowl may be served on the table together with cheese but cannot be eaten together according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say it may not be served or eaten. One gives heave from olives on oil and from grapes on wine according to the House of Shammai, but the House of Hillel say one may not.” Rebbi Mana said, it cannot be “from olives on oil” but “from oil on olives” because this is Rebbi Yose’s! For Rebbi Yose says it is heave and he has to give another heave; that is, if the first [heave] does no longer exist but if the first exists he gives it its name and that is enough.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if it fell into five places, but if it fell into one place, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if all fell into one place, there is disagreement. Ḥilfai said on that of Rebbi Eliezer, the lower profane produce becomes inert. But Rebbi Eleazar also said, the lower profane produce becomes inert. What is the difference between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis? Is one more restrictive with a lifted seah out of 100 or is one more lenient, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a seah of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant?

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse, but Rebbi Aqiba says, one only repays from one kind for its own. Therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them. From the verse which Rebbi Eliezer reads to be lenient, from there Rebbi Aqiba is restrictive, since it is said (Lev. 22:14): “He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” anything that may be consecrated, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Aqiba says, “he hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” the consecrated food he himself ate.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

Rebbi Jehudah ben Shalom, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. They formulated the symphon according to Rebbi Meïr in Qiddušin. Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, costos, and hollowed squash, and alley, and convert, and vulgar, are restrictive.

Costos as we have stated, “costos, and cardamon, and important spices may be bought with tithe money but do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, if they may be bought with tithe money they become impure by impurity of foodstuff, and if they do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff they may not be bought with tithe money.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive: they become impure by impurity of foodstuff and may not be bought with tithe money.

Hollowed squash as we have stated: “A hollowed squash which one immersed is water suitable for sanctification, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, one may not sanctify either at the beginning or at the end.

Alley, as we have stated there, “or an alley whose beam was removed, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, it is forbidden both on this Sabbath and the coming Sabbath.

Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others. Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.

Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others. Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words.” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I said, it is correct. There (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux].”

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words.” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I said, it is correct. There (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux].”

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

Robbers stole the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yair at night. She was hidden with them for three days during which she did not eat anything. After three days, they took counsel to return her. They said, remove her lest she die with us. They let her out; she returned to her master’s door and started braying. He said to them, open to that poor creature because for three days now she did not taste anything. They opened for her and she entered. He said to them, give her something to eat. They put oats before her but she did not eat. They said to him, rabbi, she does not want to eat. He asked them, did you put it in order? They said: Yes. He asked them, did you remove its demay? They said, did the rabbi not teach us: “He who buys seeds for animals, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, is free from demay”? He said to them, what can we do with this poor creature since she is very restrictive for herself? They removed the demay and she ate.

Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and dropped it off. He came back and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead.

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

“The House of Shammai say, one may not take unless one had moved when it was still daylight.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted, as we have stated there: “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, a person stands near the drying figs Friday afternoon in a Sabbatical year and says, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” Is Rebbi Eliezer not a Shammaite? One is restrictive if living things are involved.

“The House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.” The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to there;” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi was knocking on his dovecote and saying, my dovecote shall provide me tomorrow.

HALAKHAH: Therefore not an adult? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even an adult is permitted. For what purpose was stated “a small child”? It comes to inform you of the strength of the House of Shammai, how far they are restrictive. Samuel was carried from bed to bed. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa, let us say that he was asthenic. He told him, he was healthier than I and you. It was stated, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi <yose> says, the stones on which we sat on in our youth make war against us in our old age. Rebbi Jonah ordered the colleagues, do not sit on the [outside] stone benches of the assembly of Bar Ulla because they are cold. Rav commanded his students, do not sit on the outside table of the assembly of Issy because it is cold. Rebbi Abba went down to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias, leaning on two Goths. They fell down and he lifted them up, they fell down and he lifted them up. One asked him, what is this? He said to them, I preserved my strength for my old age. Rav Huna did not come to the house of assembly. Rav Qatina asked, was it not stated that one carries the asthenics?

Samuel pounded on the side of the mortar. Rav said, anything that is pounded may be pounded in its ordinary way. Rav Huna, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Garlic, and cress, and mustard seed are pounded in their ordinary way. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes oenanthium on a Sabbath is liable because of compounding. Is it therefore permitted on a holiday? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Making oenanthium on a holiday is forbidden because of compounding. Isaac Gold asked Rebbi Joḥanan, may one pound for spice wine on a holiday? He said to him, it is permitted. <rebbi isaac from atosha asked rebi simeon be laqish, may one pound to make spice wine on a holiday? he said to him, it is permitted;> give it to me and I shall drink. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Would one not act well in pounding it the day before? He said to him, yes. The argument of Rebbi Abbahu is inverted. Here he says permitted, and there he says forbidden. But since Rebbi Abbahu knew that Rebbi Ze`ira was restrictive, and that they are restrictive, therefore he agreed with them. Some want to say that so he said to him: If one wants that it be good he will not pound it the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira asked Kallidromos, the slave of Rebbi Judah the Prince, does your master pound to make spice wine on a holiday? He said to him yes, and all kinds of cuts of meat. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Immi, the father of Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris. Where do they disagree? For grilling. Put for the pot it is permitted. Rebbi Naḥum said, Rebbi Samuel bar Abba asked about noodle dough. To let it dry is forbidden, for the pot it is permitted, part and part is questionable.

Samuel pounded on the side of the mortar. Rav said, anything that is pounded may be pounded in its ordinary way. Rav Huna, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Garlic, and cress, and mustard seed are pounded in their ordinary way. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes oenanthium on a Sabbath is liable because of compounding. Is it therefore permitted on a holiday? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Making oenanthium on a holiday is forbidden because of compounding. Isaac Gold asked Rebbi Joḥanan, may one pound for spice wine on a holiday? He said to him, it is permitted. <rebbi isaac from atosha asked rebi simeon be laqish, may one pound to make spice wine on a holiday? he said to him, it is permitted;> give it to me and I shall drink. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Would one not act well in pounding it the day before? He said to him, yes. The argument of Rebbi Abbahu is inverted. Here he says permitted, and there he says forbidden. But since Rebbi Abbahu knew that Rebbi Ze`ira was restrictive, and that they are restrictive, therefore he agreed with them. Some want to say that so he said to him: If one wants that it be good he will not pound it the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira asked Kallidromos, the slave of Rebbi Judah the Prince, does your master pound to make spice wine on a holiday? He said to him yes, and all kinds of cuts of meat. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Immi, the father of Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris. Where do they disagree? For grilling. Put for the pot it is permitted. Rebbi Naḥum said, Rebbi Samuel bar Abba asked about noodle dough. To let it dry is forbidden, for the pot it is permitted, part and part is questionable.

MISHNAH: In three matters Rabban Gamliel is restrictive following the words of the House of Shammai: One does not store away hot water from the holiday to the Sabbath, one does not raise the candelabrum on the holiday, and one does not bake his bread as large loaves but as thin cakes. Rabban Gamliel said, never in my father’s house did they bake their bread as large loaves but as thin cakes. They said to him, what can we do about your father’s house who were restrictive for themselves but permissive for all of Israel to bake their bread as large loaves and on charcoal.

MISHNAH: In three matters Rabban Gamliel is restrictive following the words of the House of Shammai: One does not store away hot water from the holiday to the Sabbath, one does not raise the candelabrum on the holiday, and one does not bake his bread as large loaves but as thin cakes. Rabban Gamliel said, never in my father’s house did they bake their bread as large loaves but as thin cakes. They said to him, what can we do about your father’s house who were restrictive for themselves but permissive for all of Israel to bake their bread as large loaves and on charcoal.

“In addition, Rebbi Eliezer says, a person stands by the Muqṣeh on a Sabbath eve in a sabbatical year and says, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted, as we have stated there, “the House of Shammai say, one may not take unless one had moved when it was still daylight,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a Shammaite? One is restrictive if living things are involved. “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to here.” The argument of the Sages seems inverted, since we have stated there “the House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take,” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved.

“In addition, Rebbi Eliezer says, a person stands by the Muqṣeh on a Sabbath eve in a sabbatical year and says, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted, as we have stated there, “the House of Shammai say, one may not take unless one had moved when it was still daylight,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a Shammaite? One is restrictive if living things are involved. “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to here.” The argument of the Sages seems inverted, since we have stated there “the House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take,” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved.

“On the seventeenth of it Gentiles attacked the remainder of the Sopherim at the city of Khalkis and Bet-Zabdin and there was relief.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the {day} itself. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? [The day before? Is not the day itself forbidden for him?] Rebbi Yose said, all these matters neither support nor contradict either Rebbi Meïr or Rebbi Yose; they only come to report the days on which miracles were done for Israel. You have to understand that this is so since we have stated: “On the New Moon of Nisan the Daily Offering was settled, one may not eulogize.” Without this is he not already forbidden because of the New Moon? “But on Sabbath and holidays one fasts before and after them. What is your reason to be lenient with these and restrictive with those? For these are words of the Torah, and words of the Torah do not need reinforcement. But those are words of the Sopherim, and words of the Sopherim need reinforcement.” That is what you were saying, as long as Megillat Ta`anit was not abolished. But since Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, all these were abolished. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was repeating, “it happened that in Lydda they decided on a fast-day on Ḥanukkah. They said about Rebbi Eliezer that he got a haircut, and about Rebbi Joshua that he took a {thermal} bath. Rebbi Joshua said to them, go and fast because you fasted.” And you are saying, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished? Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying that Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, Ḥanukkah and Purim were not abolished.

“On the seventeenth of it Gentiles attacked the remainder of the Sopherim at the city of Khalkis and Bet-Zabdin and there was relief.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the {day} itself. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? Rebbi Yose said, all these matters neither support nor contradict either Rebbi Meïr or Rebbi Yose; they only come to report the days on which miracles were done for Israel. You have to understand that this is so since we have stated: “On the New Moon of Nisan the Daily Offering was settled, one may not eulogize.” Without this is it not already forbidden to him because of the New Moon? “But on Sabbath and holidays one fasts before and after them. What do you understand to be lenient with these and restrictive with those? For these are words of the Torah, and words of the Torah do not need reinforcement. But those are words of the Sopherim, and words of the Sopherim need reinforcement.” That is what you were saying, as long as Megillat Ta`anit was not abolished. But since Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, all these were abolished. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Jonathan said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was repeating, “it happened that in Lydda they decided on a fast-day on Ḥanukkah. They said about Rebbi Eliezer that he got a haircut, and about Rebbi Joshua that he took a {thermal} bath. Rebbi Joshua said to them, go and fast because you fasted.” And you are saying, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished? Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying that Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, Ḥanukkah and Purim were not abolished.

MISHNAH: One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy about purity of wine and oil the entire year but about heave {only} at the time of grape and olive harvest. If the time of grape and olive harvest is passed and he brought him a barrel of heave wine he should not accept it but let it stay until the next grape harvest. Only if he said, I put into it a quartarius of sanctum he is trustworthy. One is trustworthy about wine and oil barrels used for heave at the time of grape and olive harvest and sixty days preceding the grape harvest.

HALAKHAH: “One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy.” Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Because a strip of Samaritans interrupts. But did we not state, “the second best is Regev in Transjordan”? Without this would not a strip of Samaritans interrupt? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it if he brings whole olives and pounds them there. And in Judea one is trustworthy about the wine but not about the flasks. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Southerner who said, I brought this from Galilee is trustworthy; a Galilean who said, I brought this from Judea is not trustworthy.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, costos, and hollowed squash, and alley, and convert, and vulgar, are restrictive.

Costos as we have stated, “costos, and cardamon, and important spices, and benjamin, and asa foetida, and peppers, and safflower cakes, may be bought with tithe money but do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, if they may be bought with tithe money they become impure by impurity of foodstuff, and if they do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff they may not be bought with tithe money.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive: they become impure by impurity of foodstuff and may not be bought with tithe money.

Hollowed squash as we have stated: “A hollowed squash which one immersed in water is suitable for sanctification, and one uses it to sanctify until it becomes impure. Once it is impure one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Joshua says, if one uses it to sanctify at the start then also at the end. If one does not use at the end then also not at the start.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, one may not sanctify either at the beginning or at the end.

Alley, as we have stated there, “or an alley whose beam was removed, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, it is forbidden both on this Sabbath and the coming Sabbath.

Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.

Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.

HALAKHAH: Do vessels need immersion? Rebbi Abba said, I am saying that possibly one of the vessels there was not sprinkled upon. Then should we not suspect all of them? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that there was one of the Cohanim who left to speak with a woman about her nest and a drop of spittle fell on his clothing from her mouth and made him impure. Then should we not suspect all of them? Explain it if it became impure by fluids of uncertain status. There we have stated: “Fluids of uncertain status, to become impure they are impure, to make impure they are pure.” There about heave, here about sancta. One is restrictive for sancta.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: It is permitted to wash women’s bath cloths on the holiday. Women’s bath cloths have the same status as men’s bath cloths. What are women’s bath cloths? The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, οθόνιον. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person who only has one garment may wash it on the holiday. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this means two, that he may give one to be washed and wear one. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the status of small children’s garments? He said to them, like one who only has one garment. They asked before him: We have stated, “only the relatives of the deceased may tear their clothes, take off their shoes, and accept the consolation meal.” If his strip was small and his relatives want to come to him, may half of them sit inside and half outside? He said to them, half of them should come today and half tomorrow. Rebbi Mana said, there we had thought that he was going to be lenient, but he was restrictive.

“If the latter left pregnant, she has to suspect,” since there is one doubt, whether it was a male or a female. A doubt in biblical matters has to be resolved in a restrictive way. “Rebbi Joshua says, she does not have to suspect,” since there is a double doubt. There are doubts whether it was a male or a female, and whether it was a live or a still birth.

“A man can make his son a nazir,” and “a man can shave”. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Meїr: In twenty-four matters are the House of Shammai lenient while the House of Hillel are restrictive and that is one of them: The House of Shammai say, a man cannot make his son a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, a man can make his son a nazir.

MISHNAH: Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place, or qorbān [shall be] what I shall eat from you, no qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat from you; he is permitted. An oath that I shall not eat at your place, an oath that I shall eat from you, no oath that I shall not eat from you; he is forbidden. That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths? If he said qônām that I shall not make a sukkah, that I shall not take a lulab, that I shall not put on phylacteries, as a vow he is forbidden, as an oath he is permitted since one cannot swear to transgress commandments.

MISHNAH: Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place, or qorbān [shall be] what I shall eat from you, no qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat from you; he is permitted. An oath that I shall not eat at your place, an oath that I shall eat from you, no oath that I shall not eat from you; he is forbidden. That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths? If he said qônām that I shall not make a sukkah, that I shall not take a lulab, that I shall not put on phylacteries, as a vow he is forbidden, as an oath he is permitted since one cannot swear to transgress commandments.

HALAKHAH: “Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place,” etc. Why did we not state: An oath that I shall eat from you, he is permitted? Only because we stated: “That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows.” We wanted to say about “an oath that I shall not eat of yours,” that the words of the Sages are: he is forbidden. Therefore it was not stated.

“That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths?” “Or a person who swears to lightly express with his lips for bad or for good.” Just as doing good is a matter of choice, so doing bad is a matter of choice; that excludes any prohibition which is a commandment. They wanted to say, inadvertently, but not intentionally. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, “anything that comes out of his mouth he shall do,” not what comes out of Heaven’s mouth. Should we say that this is the same for vows of sanctification? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: For a man may vow his sukkah to Heaven.

“That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths?” “Or a person who swears to lightly express with his lips for bad or for good.” Just as doing good is a matter of choice, so doing bad is a matter of choice; that excludes any prohibition which is a commandment. They wanted to say, inadvertently, but not intentionally. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, “anything that comes out of his mouth he shall do,” not what comes out of Heaven’s mouth. Should we say that this is the same for vows of sanctification? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: For a man may vow his sukkah to Heaven.

It was found stated about both cases: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ], does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there, “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow.

How does one deal with him in a restrictive way? He brings two swallows and slaughters one of them over a clay vessel filled from running water; one digs und buries it, for it is forbidden for usufruct. He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows in the way the sufferers from skin disease do. He counts 30 days and brings another animal as elevation offering, saying: “If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one is obligatory, and the purification offering is my obligation. If I was pure, the first elevation offering was my obligation, this one is voluntary, and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are Ben Zoma’s words, but the words of the Sages: Forever is he definitively [impure] until he heave the reparation sacrifice. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Why is he definitively [impure] until he heave the reparation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? We find several reparation sacrifices which are pushed aside because of doubts! As we have stated there: “If a reparation sacrifice was mixed up with a well-being sacrifice, Rebbi Simeon says that both should be slaughtered in the North and eaten following the more restrictive rules. They said to him, one does not cause sacrifices to become invalid.

A case came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, it is unnecessary. The opinion of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce, but here, he says so? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: What you said was in earlier times when no Fellows were found outside the Land, but now that there are Fellows found outside the Land, they are competent. But did we not state, “and one who brings there”? And even if you say that no Fellows are found outside the Land, are we not found in the Land of Israel? In order not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce from outside the Land. But then one who brings from overseas should not have to say: “It was written before me and signed before me.” Not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce in the Land of Israel. What about it? One is restrictive in a simple case because of the complicated one and one is not permissive in the complicated because of the easy one. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: This of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, if it was done. But from the start even Rebbi Joshua ben Levi agrees.

Rebbi Yose the Galilean said: Do we find in the Torah that what is forbidden to one is permitted to the other and what is permitted to one is forbidden for the other? Forbidden to one she is forbidden to everybody;permitted to one is permitted to everybody. Rebbi Aqiba objected: If the one to whom she was prohibited was a Cohen and the divorcer died, would she not be considered a widow for him but a divorcee for all his clan of Cohanim? Where was the Torah more restrictive, for a divorcee or for a widow? The Torah was more restrictive for a divorcee than for a widow. But since a divorcee, where one is more restrictive in all aspects, does not become forbidden with respect to what was permitted by her divorce, would it be logical that the widow should be forbidden from what was permitted her from her aspect of married woman? Even him did the divorce touch. Since both a widow and a divorcee were forbidden even if her aspect of married woman was permitted, with restrictive divorce certainly she should be forbidden even in the aspect that was permitted by her divorce.

Rebbi Yose the Galilean said: Do we find in the Torah that what is forbidden to one is permitted to the other and what is permitted to one is forbidden for the other? Forbidden to one she is forbidden to everybody;permitted to one is permitted to everybody. Rebbi Aqiba objected: If the one to whom she was prohibited was a Cohen and the divorcer died, would she not be considered a widow for him but a divorcee for all his clan of Cohanim? Where was the Torah more restrictive, for a divorcee or for a widow? The Torah was more restrictive for a divorcee than for a widow. But since a divorcee, where one is more restrictive in all aspects, does not become forbidden with respect to what was permitted by her divorce, would it be logical that the widow should be forbidden from what was permitted her from her aspect of married woman? Even him did the divorce touch. Since both a widow and a divorcee were forbidden even if her aspect of married woman was permitted, with restrictive divorce certainly she should be forbidden even in the aspect that was permitted by her divorce.

Rebbi Yose the Galilean said: Do we find in the Torah that what is forbidden to one is permitted to the other and what is permitted to one is forbidden for the other? Forbidden to one she is forbidden to everybody;permitted to one is permitted to everybody. Rebbi Aqiba objected: If the one to whom she was prohibited was a Cohen and the divorcer died, would she not be considered a widow for him but a divorcee for all his clan of Cohanim? Where was the Torah more restrictive, for a divorcee or for a widow? The Torah was more restrictive for a divorcee than for a widow. But since a divorcee, where one is more restrictive in all aspects, does not become forbidden with respect to what was permitted by her divorce, would it be logical that the widow should be forbidden from what was permitted her from her aspect of married woman? Even him did the divorce touch. Since both a widow and a divorcee were forbidden even if her aspect of married woman was permitted, with restrictive divorce certainly she should be forbidden even in the aspect that was permitted by her divorce.

Rebbi Yose the Galilean said: Do we find in the Torah that what is forbidden to one is permitted to the other and what is permitted to one is forbidden for the other? Forbidden to one she is forbidden to everybody;permitted to one is permitted to everybody. Rebbi Aqiba objected: If the one to whom she was prohibited was a Cohen and the divorcer died, would she not be considered a widow for him but a divorcee for all his clan of Cohanim? Where was the Torah more restrictive, for a divorcee or for a widow? The Torah was more restrictive for a divorcee than for a widow. But since a divorcee, where one is more restrictive in all aspects, does not become forbidden with respect to what was permitted by her divorce, would it be logical that the widow should be forbidden from what was permitted her from her aspect of married woman? Even him did the divorce touch. Since both a widow and a divorcee were forbidden even if her aspect of married woman was permitted, with restrictive divorce certainly she should be forbidden even in the aspect that was permitted by her divorce.

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.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Sisin, Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy in the name of Rebbi Aḥa. They formulated the symphōn according to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis, asked: Why does it have to follow Rebbi Meïr but not also the rabbis? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The following is the contract text: “I, X son of Y, contract a preliminary marriage with you, Z, daughter of U, on condition that I shall give you property A and definitively marry you by day B. If that day should pass without me having taken you in, I shall have no claim on you.” Why can he not say “on condition” but not double his stipulation? If he did not double his stipulation, could this eliminate the preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everywhere Rebbi Meïr holds that from “no” you infer “yes”, except here? Rebbi Mattaniah said, one is more restrictive in matters of incest and adultery.

MISHNAH: How does one treat the bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, wallowed, or kicked, in the public domain he pays half of the damages. In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages. Rebbi Tarphon said to them: Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is free, He was restrictive for them in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, when full damages must be paid, and He was restrictive regarding damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages; is it not logical that we should be restrictive in this case in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, He was restrictive for damage by the horn, when He was restrictive with [damage by] tooth or foot in the domain of the person sustaining the damage; is it not logical that we should be restrictive [in case of damage] by the horn? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages.

MISHNAH: How does one treat the bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, wallowed, or kicked, in the public domain he pays half of the damages. In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages. Rebbi Tarphon said to them: Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is free, He was restrictive for them in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, when full damages must be paid, and He was restrictive regarding damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages; is it not logical that we should be restrictive in this case in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, He was restrictive for damage by the horn, when He was restrictive with [damage by] tooth or foot in the domain of the person sustaining the damage; is it not logical that we should be restrictive [in case of damage] by the horn? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages.

MISHNAH: How does one treat the bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, wallowed, or kicked, in the public domain he pays half of the damages. In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages. Rebbi Tarphon said to them: Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is free, He was restrictive for them in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, when full damages must be paid, and He was restrictive regarding damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages; is it not logical that we should be restrictive in this case in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, He was restrictive for damage by the horn, when He was restrictive with [damage by] tooth or foot in the domain of the person sustaining the damage; is it not logical that we should be restrictive [in case of damage] by the horn? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages.

MISHNAH: How does one treat the bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, wallowed, or kicked, in the public domain he pays half of the damages. In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages. Rebbi Tarphon said to them: Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is free, He was restrictive for them in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, when full damages must be paid, and He was restrictive regarding damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages; is it not logical that we should be restrictive in this case in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, He was restrictive for damage by the horn, when He was restrictive with [damage by] tooth or foot in the domain of the person sustaining the damage; is it not logical that we should be restrictive [in case of damage] by the horn? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages.

MISHNAH: How does one treat the bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, wallowed, or kicked, in the public domain he pays half of the damages. In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages. Rebbi Tarphon said to them: Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is free, He was restrictive for them in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, when full damages must be paid, and He was restrictive regarding damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages; is it not logical that we should be restrictive in this case in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, He was restrictive for damage by the horn, when He was restrictive with [damage by] tooth or foot in the domain of the person sustaining the damage; is it not logical that we should be restrictive [in case of damage] by the horn? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages.

MISHNAH: How does one treat the bull of the person causing the damage in the domain of the person sustaining the damage? If it gored, hit, bit, wallowed, or kicked, in the public domain he pays half of the damages. In the domain of the person sustaining the damage, Rebbi Ṭarphon said, full damages; but the Sages say, half damages. Rebbi Tarphon said to them: Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, where one is free, He was restrictive for them in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, when full damages must be paid, and He was restrictive regarding damage by the horn in the public domain, where one has to pay half damages; is it not logical that we should be restrictive in this case in the domain of the person sustaining the damage, that full damages must be paid? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages. He said to them, I do not argue horn from horn, I argue horn from foot! Since in a case where He was lenient with [damage by] tooth or foot in the public domain, He was restrictive for damage by the horn, when He was restrictive with [damage by] tooth or foot in the domain of the person sustaining the damage; is it not logical that we should be restrictive [in case of damage] by the horn? They said to him, it is sufficient for the result of an argument de minore ad majus that it should be like the premiss. Since in the public domain [one pays] half damages, also in the domain of the person sustaining the damage half damages.

Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said, everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother) the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for fetuses. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “If people quarrel”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “When they quarrel,” “when they brawl”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said, everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother) the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for fetuses. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “If people quarrel”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “When they quarrel,” “when they brawl”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said, everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother) the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for fetuses. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “If people quarrel”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “When they quarrel,” “when they brawl”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter, and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay? Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter.” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

Their roasted egg, Bar Qappara permitted, Ḥizqiah forbade. So far if it was roasted intentionally. If it was roasted unintentionally? Let us hear from the following: There was a fire in an under-growth of reeds and a swamp of date palms where there were locusts which were roasted. The case came before Rebbi Mana, who forbade them. Rebbi Abbahu said, because of admixture of impure locusts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, and this is of the stringencies of Rav. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and it dropped off under him. He went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall, for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure, since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall, for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure, since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine.

Huna bar Ḥiyya said, the 24 hours which were quoted refer to sacrifices but not to pure food. Rav Ḥisda objected, was it not stated: “It happened with a girl in Aitlo that she missed for three periods and then had a period. When the case came before the Sages, they said that her timing is exact.” Are there sacrifices in Aitlo? But it must be food prepared in the purity of sacrifices! Is that not really profane food? Explain it if it was prepared in the purity of purifying water, since purifying water has more restrictive rules than sacrifices.