ritual

A seah of terumah which fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and rendered the whole medumma, and part of this mixture fell afterwards into another place: Rabbi Eliezer says: it renders again medumma as if certain terumah [had fallen in]. But the sages say: the [first] mixture renders medumma only according to the proportion. [Similarly], that which is leavened [with terumah] renders other dough leavened [as with terumah] only according to the proportion. And drawn water disqualifies a ritual bath also only according to the proportion.

Dough for dogs: If shepherds eat it: it is subject to hallah, and one may use it to make an eruv or a shittuf; and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may be made on a festival; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah. But if shepherds do not eat it: it is not subject to hallah; and one may not use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf; and one does not say the blessings over it, and one does not make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may not be made on a festival; and one does not fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. In either case it is susceptible to ritual defilement affecting food.

They may annul vows on Shabbat, and they may be asked [to release vows] when these are necessary for Shabbat. One may close up a skylight, and measure a rag and a ritual bath. And it once happened in the days of Rabbi Zadok’s father and the days of Abba Shaul ben Botnit that they closed up the window with a small clay vessel and tied a [clay] pot to a string to ascertain whether there was the opening of a handbreadth or not in the barrel. And from their words we learn that we may close [a skylight] and measure and tie on Shabbat.

On the first of Adar they make a public announcement about the shekels and concerning kilayim. On the fifteenth: they read the Megillah [Esther] in walled cities, and they fix the roads and the streets and the ritual water baths, and they perform all public duties, and they mark the graves, and [messengers] go forth also concerning kilayim.

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid. But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says, whether small or large: if it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; if made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

“The aravah seven days.” How is this? If the seventh day of [the ritual of] the aravah fell on Shabbat, [it lasts] seven days; if it fell on any other day, [it lasts only] six.

All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an idiot and a minor. Rabbi Judah qualifies a minor. They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.

They may not sell a synagogue except with the stipulation that it may be bought back whenever they want, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they may sell it in perpetuity, except for four purposes for it to become one of four things: a bathhouse, a tannery, a ritual bath, or a urinal. Rabbi Judah says: they may sell it to be a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes with it.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: they may not make a new water channel may not during the festival [week] or in the sabbatical year. But the sages say: they may make a new water channel during the sabbatical year, and they may repair broken ones during the festival. And they may repair impaired water works in the public domain, and clean them out. And they may repair roads, town squares and [ritual] pools, and they may do all public needs may be performed, and mark graves, and [inspectors] may go out to inspect kilayim (mixed seeds).

[If one says,] “Behold I am a nazir [to abstain] from grape seeds, or from grape skins, or from shaving, or from [contracting] ritual defilement,” he is a nazirite and all the regulations of naziriteship apply to him. [If one says,] “Behold, I shall be like Samson”, “like the son of Manoah”, “like the husband of Delilah, or “like the one who uprooted the doors of Gaza,” or “like the one whose eyes the Philistines put out,” he is a nazirite like Samson. What difference is there between a nazirite like Samson and a life-nazirite? A life-nazirite if his hair becomes burdensome, he may thin it with a razor and then offer three animal sacrifices. If he should he be ritually defiled, he must offer the sacrifice [prescribed] for defilement. The nazirite like Samson if his hair becomes burdensome, he may not thin it. And if he becomes ritually defiled, he does not offer the sacrifice [prescribed] for defilement.

If one vows a long naziriteship of and completes his naziriteship and afterwards comes to the land [of Israel]: Beth Shammai says that he is a nazirite for thirty days, But Beth Hillel says that his naziriteship begins again. It happened that Queen Helena, when her son went to war, said: “If my son returns in peace from the war, I shall be a nazirite for seven years.” Her son returned from the war, and she was a nazirite for seven years. At the end of the seven years, she went up to the land [of Israel] and Beth Hillel instructed her to be a nazirite for a further seven years. Towards the end of this seven years, she contracted ritual defilement, and so altogether she was a nazirite for twenty-one years. Rabbi Judah said: she was a nazirite only for fourteen years.

If one of the kinds of blood has been sprinkled on her behalf, [the husband] can no longer annul [the vow]. Rabbi Akiba says: even if one of the animals has been slaughtered on her behalf, he can no longer annul [the vow]. When is this true? If she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, but if she is shaving after ritual defilement, he can [still] annul [the vow], because he can say, “I do not want a disgraced woman.” Rabbi says that he can annul [her vow] even if she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, since he can say: “I do not want a woman who is shaved.

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving, and products of the vine. All products of the vine join together [to add up to a minimum measure], and he is not liable until he eats an olive’s worth of grapes. According to the earlier mishnah, until he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine. Rabbi Akiba says: even if he soaked his bread in wine and it is enough to make an olive’s worth he is liable.

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving and products of the vine. Defilement and shaving have a stringency that products of the vine do not have, in that defilement and shaving annul [the period of naziriteship already observed], whereas [partaking of] products of the vine does not do so. Products of the vine have a stringency that defilement or shaving do not have, in that products of the vine permit of no exception from the general prohibition, whereas defilement and shaving are allowed as exception from the general prohibition in the case where shaving is a religious duty, or where there is a neglected corpse. And defilement has a stringency that shaving does not have, in that defilement annuls the whole [period of naziriteship already served], and [a nazirite who is defiled] is liable for a sacrifice, whereas shaving annuls only thirty days and he is not liable for a sacrifice.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if he brought three animals without specifying [what they were for], the one suitable for a sin offering is sacrificed as a sin offering, for a burnt offering as a burnt offering, and for a well-being offering as a well-being offering. He would then take the hair of his nazirite head and threw it under the cauldron. If he shaved in the province he [also] would throw it under the cauldron. With regard to what was this said? With regard to shaving in ritual purity, whereas in shaving [after] ritual defilement he does not throw it under the cauldron. Rabbi Meir says: all [nazirites] throw it under the cauldron, except for the defiled nazirite [who shaved] in the provinces.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if he brought three animals without specifying [what they were for], the one suitable for a sin offering is sacrificed as a sin offering, for a burnt offering as a burnt offering, and for a well-being offering as a well-being offering. He would then take the hair of his nazirite head and threw it under the cauldron. If he shaved in the province he [also] would throw it under the cauldron. With regard to what was this said? With regard to shaving in ritual purity, whereas in shaving [after] ritual defilement he does not throw it under the cauldron. Rabbi Meir says: all [nazirites] throw it under the cauldron, except for the defiled nazirite [who shaved] in the provinces.

A Jew may tread the winepress together with a non-Jew but may not pick grapes with him. If an israelite was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither tread nor pick with him, but one may move [empty] casks with him to the press and carry them [filled] with him from the press. If a baker was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither knead nor roll dough with him but we may carry loaves with him to the bakery.

A Jew may tread the winepress together with a non-Jew but may not pick grapes with him. If an israelite was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither tread nor pick with him, but one may move [empty] casks with him to the press and carry them [filled] with him from the press. If a baker was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither knead nor roll dough with him but we may carry loaves with him to the bakery.

If [an Jew] prepares a non-Jew's wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, in a house which is open to the public domain, should it be in a city where non-Jews and Jews reside, it is permitted. But should it be in a city where only non-Jews reside it is prohibited unless [an Jew] sits and guard. There is no need for the guard to sit and watch [the whole time]; even if he keeps going out and coming in it is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: it is all one with the domain of a non-Jew.

If [a Jew] prepares a non-Jew’s wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, and the [non-Jew] writes for him “I have received the money from you,” then [the wine] is permitted. If, however, the Jew wished to remove it and [the non-Jew] refuses to let it go until he paid him this actually happened in Beth-Shan and [the Rabbis] prohibited it.

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar. Dedications for the altar effect a substitute; They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual uncleanness; Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption; If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty; And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.

A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified. The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot. What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.

It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid.

It is not permissible to collect the water in a trough set in the stone, nor is it permissible to prepare the mixture in it, nor may the sprinkling be done from it, nor does it require a tightly fitting cover, nor does it render a ritual bath invalid. If it was first a movable vessel and then was subsequently joined to the ground with lime, it is permissible to collect the water in it, to prepare the mixture in it and to sprinkle from it. And it needs a tightly fitting cover and renders a ritual bath invalid. If there was a hole in it below, and he stopped it up with a rag, the water in it is invalid since it is not wholly enclosed by the vessel. If the hole was in the side and it was stopped up with a rag, the water in it is valid since it is wholly enclosed by the vessel. If he made a rim of clay for the vessel and the water had risen to that spot, it is invalid; But if it was solid enough for the vessel to be moved with it, the water is valid.

All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (mikveh), for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (mikveh), for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

MISHNAH: One may sell a synagogue only on the condition that they could take it back any time they so desire, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying that one may sell it permanently except for four things, a bath house, a tannery, a ritual bath, and a urinal. Rebbi Jehudah says, one sells it as a courtyard and the buyer may use it as he pleases. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said, in a destroyed synagogue one does not eulogize, nor twine ropes, nor set in it traps, nor on its roof lay out produce, nor use it as a short-cut, for it is said, I shall lay waste your holy places, they are in their holiness even if laid waste. If grasses are growing there one shall not tear them out because of the bad feeling.

There we have stated: “The Land of Israel is pure and its ritual baths are pure.” “The land of the Samaritans is pure; its ritual baths, and its dwellings, and its paths are pure.” Its paths are pure; it is a presumption that they would not select a path unless it was pure. And its ritual baths are pure; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: that is, to believe them that they are not from drawn water, but not for the measure of forty; for they explain, only a spring or a cistern, a collection of water,” just as a spring cleanses in any amount, any collection of water cleanses in any amount.

There we have stated: “The Land of Israel is pure and its ritual baths are pure.” “The land of the Samaritans is pure; its ritual baths, and its dwellings, and its paths are pure.” Its paths are pure; it is a presumption that they would not select a path unless it was pure. And its ritual baths are pure; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: that is, to believe them that they are not from drawn water, but not for the measure of forty; for they explain, only a spring or a cistern, a collection of water,” just as a spring cleanses in any amount, any collection of water cleanses in any amount.

There we have stated: “The Land of Israel is pure and its ritual baths are pure.” “The land of the Samaritans is pure; its ritual baths, and its dwellings, and its paths are pure.” Its paths are pure; it is a presumption that they would not select a path unless it was pure. And its ritual baths are pure; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: that is, to believe them that they are not from drawn water, but not for the measure of forty; for they explain, only a spring or a cistern, a collection of water,” just as a spring cleanses in any amount, any collection of water cleanses in any amount.

Abbai said : It refers to a Samaritan who is a Haber. Raba said : Thou mayest even suppose that it refers to a Samaritan who is an 'Am ha'ares, and we are here dealing with the 'Am ha'ares so designated by the Rabbis who disagree in this matter with R. Meir. For there is a teaching : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not eat his non-holy food in a condition of ritual purity — these are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : Whoever does not properly tithe his fruits. These Samaritans, however, do properly apportion the tithe, for they are careful to observe what is written in the Torah. The teacher has said : The commandments to which the Samaritans adhere they observe more scrupulously than the Israelite.

Against this [latter teaching] is quoted : They may go out from the entrance of the olive-press and ease themselves behind a fence, and they remain in a state of ritual purity !

They take a more lenient view in connection with [those who supervise] ritual purity.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this? Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this? Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.

This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this? Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.

When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Yohanan, Scripture says, "The Festival [hag] of Sukkoth you shall make for yourselves. The Sukkah is thus compared to the Festival [offering]. Just as the Festival offering is a thing which is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grows from the soil, so the Sukkah must be unsusceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grow from the soil.

When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Yohanan, Scripture says, "The Festival [hag] of Sukkoth you shall make for yourselves. The Sukkah is thus compared to the Festival [offering]. Just as the Festival offering is a thing which is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grows from the soil, so the Sukkah must be unsusceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grow from the soil.

R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Herbs concerning which the sages said that a person fulfills with them his obligation on Pesah, convey ritual defilement, do not act as an interposition to ritual defilement and invalidate a sukkah in the same manner as an air space What is the reason? — Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there

R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Herbs concerning which the sages said that a person fulfills with them his obligation on Pesah, convey ritual defilement, do not act as an interposition to ritual defilement and invalidate a sukkah in the same manner as an air space What is the reason? — Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there

R. Abba further said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests grapes for the vat, does not render their "handles" [stalks] susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness;

And if you will say that this refers only to vessels which are of importance but that ‘handles’ which are needed only as aids for the eating of the food, are made [susceptible to uncleanness] by intention and are also unmade by intention [it may be objected], But have we not learned: The handles of all foodstuffs that are threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to ritual uncleanliness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible?

Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh. If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

GEMARA. [Is not our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says, if made for reclining upon is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh The reason then is because it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for skhakh.

And then it is taught: if made for a covering it is valid as skhakh and is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness. The reason then is because it was made specifically for a covering, but if it was made without specific purpose [it would be assumed that it was] made for reclining upon?

And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as skhakh. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.

Furthermore, is it not in fact with regard to a large mat that they are in dispute, and it is R. Eliezer who takes the stricter view, for it was taught: A large mat of reeds is valid for skhakh. R. Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, it is valid for skhakh.

that they are susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, or of Tiberias that they are not susceptible. About what do they dispute? About those of other places. One Master is of the opinion that since they are not [as a rule] used for sitting upon, they are like those of Tiberias, and the Masters are of the opinion that since it sometimes happens that they are used for sitting upon, they are like those of ‘Usha

GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Judah? R. Zera and R. Abba b. Mamal disagree. One says, It is because the Sukkah has no permanence, and the other says, It is because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

What [case] differentiates between them? If, for instance, he fixed iron stakes [in the ground] and covered them with skhakh According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, he is here also setting it up with something which is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

What [case] differentiates between them? If, for instance, he fixed iron stakes [in the ground] and covered them with skhakh According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, he is here also setting it up with something which is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

Abaye said: They taught this only if he supported it, but if he placed skhkah above a bed, it is valid. What is the reason? According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, here he does not prop it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

Abaye said: They taught this only if he supported it, but if he placed skhkah above a bed, it is valid. What is the reason? According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, here he does not prop it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.

If it was of clean terumah, he should not take it. R. Ammi and R. Assi disagree: One explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], while the other explains because he diminishes it

What is the practical difference between them? For instance in a case where he called it terumah except for its outer peel. According to the one who explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], the prohibition does apply. According to the one who explains, because he diminishes it, the prohibition does not apply.

If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.

If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.

If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.

6) “The aravah—seven days.” How is this? a) If the seventh day of [the ritual of] the aravah fell on Shabbat, [it lasts] seven days; if it fell on any other day, [it lasts only] six.

The aravah for seven days. How so? Why does the [ritual of the] aravah on the seventh day override Shabbat? R. Yohanan said: In order to publicize the fact that it is a [commandment] of the Torah. But if so, let the lulav also override Shabbat in order to publicize the fact that it is a from the Torah?

Does not then the original difficulty arise? R. Joseph answered: Who says that [the ritual of] the aravah is [performed] by the taking of it? Perhaps it is done by its being stood up next [to the sides of the altar].

Abaye raised an objection against him: The lulav and the aravah are for six or seven days. Does [this not imply that the aravah is] as the lulav: just as the [ritual of the] lulav is [performed] by its being taken, so too [the ritual] of the aravah is performed by its being taken? What kind of argument is that? This one is performed in its way, and this one in its way.

Abaye raised an objection against him: The lulav and the aravah are for six or seven days. Does [this not imply that the aravah is] as the lulav: just as the [ritual of the] lulav is [performed] by its being taken, so too [the ritual] of the aravah is performed by its being taken? What kind of argument is that? This one is performed in its way, and this one in its way.

He raised an objection against him: The lulav overrides Shabbat on the first day, and the aravah on the last day. On time the seventh day of the [ritual of the] aravah fell on Shabbat, and they brought saplings of aravot on the eve of Shabbat and placed them in the courtyard of the Temple. The Boethusians discovered them and took them and hid them under some stones.

Thus we see clearly that [the aravah ritual] is in the taking of it? This is a refutation.

Abaye said to Rabbah: Why in the case of the lulav do we perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple, whereas in the case of the aravah we do not perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple? He answered him: Since one fulfils the obligation [of taking the aravah] with the aravah on the lulav. He said to him: But that one he does on account of the lulav? And if you will answer that one first raises it once and then raises it again, is it not a daily occurrence that we do not do so?

Abaye said to Rabbah: Why in the case of the lulav do we perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple, whereas in the case of the aravah we do not perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple? He answered him: Since one fulfils the obligation [of taking the aravah] with the aravah on the lulav. He said to him: But that one he does on account of the lulav? And if you will answer that one first raises it once and then raises it again, is it not a daily occurrence that we do not do so?

He said to him: The Sukkah is fit to be used at twilight [after the seventh day], for if he by chance has a meal at that time he would have to sit in it and eat therein, therefore it is set aside for its ritual purpose during twilight, and since it is set aside during twilight, it is also set aside for the whole of the eighth day. The etrog, however, which is not suitable during twilight, is not set aside for its ritual purpose during twilight, hence it is not set aside for the whole day.

He said to him: The Sukkah is fit to be used at twilight [after the seventh day], for if he by chance has a meal at that time he would have to sit in it and eat therein, therefore it is set aside for its ritual purpose during twilight, and since it is set aside during twilight, it is also set aside for the whole of the eighth day. The etrog, however, which is not suitable during twilight, is not set aside for its ritual purpose during twilight, hence it is not set aside for the whole day.

Shall we say that Rav and Rabbah b. Bar Hannah differ on the same principles as those on which Bet Shammai and Beth Hillel differed? For our rabbis have taught, These are the points of difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regard to [the ritual at] a meal: Beth Shammai says that one recites the blessing of the day and then the blessing over the wine, whereas Beth Hillel says that one recites the blessing over the wine and then the blessing of the day.

Mishnah: They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.

They may not sell a synagogue except with the stipulation that it may be bought back whenever they want, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they may sell it in perpetuity, except for four purposes for it to become one of four things: a bathhouse, a tannery, a ritual bath, or a urinal. Rabbi Judah says: they may sell it to be a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes with it.

He replied: I would rather you teach me something. If so learn from me this statement that was said by R. Zera: The daughters of Israel were stringent upon themselves that even if they saw [on their garments] a spot of blood no bigger than a mustard seed, they waited for seven clean days [before taking a ritual bath].

What is the need for this 'likewise'? I would think there the person keeps his ritual status, here too the holy bread keeps it's status.