sages

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

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

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

Rebbi Zeˋira said, by what can a courtyard become permitted? It was found stated, with one plank, the words of Rebbi, but the Sages say, with two planks. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, practice follows him who said, by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows him who said, by two planks, but I am saying, by one plank. On condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side? But there are only planks of three hand-breadths on each side, and what he said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, a plank of any thickness on each side.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door. Rebbi Jeremiah said this before Rebbi Zeˋira, who told him, what do you have in your hand? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis here follow their opinion and the rabbis there follow their opinion. Since the rabbis there are saying, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them; they are those who say, it is not so. But the rabbis here who are saying, a hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door, they are those who say, it is so.

It was stated, practice follows the student, for if it were not so, would we say following the House of Shammai? Could practice follow the House of Shammai rather than the House of Hillel? But since it was stated, “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, an alley which is not four hand-breadths deep does not need a beam.” The words of the Sages? Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: An alley which is less than four cubits does not need anything.

“Round, one considers it as if square.” Again this is Rebbi Jehudah’s. They inferred it from the sea. He made the sea cast, ten cubits. It is impossible to say “circular” since already it was said “square”. It is impossible to say “square” since already it was said “circular”. If you said circular, it would turn out to contain 160 times the measure of purity. If you said square, it would turn out to contain 122 times the measure of purity. Therefore you have to say that the upper two cubits were circular, the lower three cubits were square and it turns out that it contained 150 times the measure of purity. One verse says, it contained 2’000 bat, but another verse says, it contained a volume of 3’000 bat. It is impossible to say 2’000 since already it says 3’000 and it is impossible to say 3’000 since already it says 2’000. Therefore you have 2’000 in fluid measure which are 3’000 in dry measure. From here the Sages learned that 40 seah in fluid measure are two kor in dry measure.

HALAKHAH: “One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rebbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for him who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for him who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it would slip off, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it would slip off, would he notice? Rebbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rebbi Aḥa. (They said to him) [He said to them], it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice in case it slipped off you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice in case it slipped off not so much more? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa.

HALAKHAH: “One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rebbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for him who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for him who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it would slip off, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it would slip off, would he notice? Rebbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rebbi Aḥa. (They said to him) [He said to them], it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice in case it slipped off you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice in case it slipped off not so much more? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa.

MISHNAH: One surrounds with sticks, on condition that between one stick and the next there be less than three hand-breadths. They spoke about a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say that the Sages mentioned a caravan only as an example. Any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah; but the Sages say, one of these two. Of four matters they freed a military camp: One may bring wood from anywhere, and they are not liable for washing their hands, and from demay, and from making an eruv.

MISHNAH: One surrounds with sticks, on condition that between one stick and the next there be less than three hand-breadths. They spoke about a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say that the Sages mentioned a caravan only as an example. Any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah; but the Sages say, one of these two. Of four matters they freed a military camp: One may bring wood from anywhere, and they are not liable for washing their hands, and from demay, and from making an eruv.

MISHNAH: One surrounds with sticks, on condition that between one stick and the next there be less than three hand-breadths. They spoke about a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say that the Sages mentioned a caravan only as an example. Any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah; but the Sages say, one of these two. Of four matters they freed a military camp: One may bring wood from anywhere, and they are not liable for washing their hands, and from demay, and from making an eruv.

MISHNAH: If a public road interrupts them he should divert it around it, but the Sages say that this is unnecessary. One makes planks both for a public cistern, a public well, and a private well, but for a private cistern one makes a partition of ten hand-breadths, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bava said, one makes planks only for a public well; for everything else one makes a belt ten hand-breadths high.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted, as we have stated there: “And similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not inverted. Rebbi Jeremiah said, for he is of Rav Jehudah’s opinion, as Rav Jehudah said, that is if it is open to a domain of difficult access. But if it was open to the public domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, how does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam at each side but the Sages say a lath and a beam on one side and he shall make a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? Here about ten [cubits], there about thirteen. The words of the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rav Hoshaia asked my father, how large can the breach of an alley be in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah? And he told him, thirteen [cubits]. And here he says so? The Rabbis of Caesarea say, there what is standing is more than what is breached but here what is breached is more than what is standing.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted, as we have stated there: “And similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not inverted. Rebbi Jeremiah said, for he is of Rav Jehudah’s opinion, as Rav Jehudah said, that is if it is open to a domain of difficult access. But if it was open to the public domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, how does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam at each side but the Sages say a lath and a beam on one side and he shall make a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? Here about ten [cubits], there about thirteen. The words of the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rav Hoshaia asked my father, how large can the breach of an alley be in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah? And he told him, thirteen [cubits]. And here he says so? The Rabbis of Caesarea say, there what is standing is more than what is breached but here what is breached is more than what is standing.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “In addition, Rebbi Jehudah ben Bava said,” etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, they inferred it from the courtyard of the Tabernacle: the length of the courtyard 100 cubits wide 50 by 50. 50 times 100 are 5’000. 70 by 70 are 5’000 minus 100, and we have stated “seventy cubits and a remainder.” And Samuel stated, they stated cubits and two thirds of a cubit. Seventy times two thirds and seventy times two thirds make 140 thirds each; 140 thirds and 140 thirds are 93⅓. There is missing from there 4/9 for the corner, there remain nineteen thirds minus one ninth. As we have stated, there is a slight difference which the Sages could not compute.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a Sage comes from the East,” etc. Some Tannaim state, to the West. He who says, in the East, about these Sages. He who says, in the West, about a fundraiser.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if a holiday is next to a Sabbath either before or after, a person may make two eruvin and say: my first eruv shall be to the East and the second to the West, the first to the West and the second to the East, my first eruv but on the second like the people of my town. My eruv for the first [day], but the second like the people of my town; the second [day], but the first like the people of my town.. But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side or one does not make an eruv at all; one makes an eruv for both days or one does not make an eruv at all. What should he do? He brings it on the first day, stays there when it gets dark, takes it and goes home, On the second day he brings it, stays there when it gets dark, eats it and goes home. It turns out that he profits from his going and his eruv. If it is eaten on the first day, it is an eruv for the first but is not an eruv for the second. Rebbi Eliezer told them, you agree with me that they are two kinds if sanctities.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. “But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side.” So is the Mishnah: Either one makes an eruv to one side for two days or one does not make an eruv at all. Rebbi Eliezer agrees that one cannot make an eruv for half a day in the South and one for half a day in the North, for half a day in the South and one for half a day (in the North) for the people of his place. They told him, just as you did not split the day for us, so do not split two days for us. They agree that he should not put them in a basket. Rebbi Abba said, that he should not forget and eat it. If he did put it into a basket, he should bring the basket there. If he eats one of them he is a donkey driver-camel driver.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented, he makes two eruvin and says, my first eruv should be to the East and the second to the West, the first to the West and the second to the East, my eruv for the first day and on the second like the people of my village, for the second day but the first day like the people of my village. But the Sages did not agree with him.

MISHNAH: In addition, Rebbi Jehudah says that a person may stipulate about a basket on the first day and eat from it on the second; similarly an egg which was laid on the first may be eaten on the second; but the Sages did not agree with him.

HALAKHAH: “And he says if today is holiday my words should be void but he gives a name to his tithes but does not eat from it. On the second [day] he gives a name to his tithes and eats from it.” Rav’s argument seems inverted. There he treats it as one sanctity but here he treats it as two sanctities. There it is one long sanctity but here one is holy, the other profane. The rabbis’ argument seems inverted. There they treat it as two sanctities, but here they make it one sanctity. There a holiday next to a Sabbath is like weekday next to Sabbath but here both are equal. The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about the two days of the New Year which are an institution of the early prophets

MISHNAH: Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos said, the reader on New Year’s Day says “save us, Eternal, our God, on this Day of the New Moon, whether it be today or tomorrow.” The next day he says, “whether it be today or was yesterday”; but the Sages did not agree with him.

MISHNAH: If somebody slept on the road and did not realize that night fell he has 2’000 cubits in every direction, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but the Sages say, he only has four cubits. Rebbi Eleazar says, he is in the center; Rebbi Jehudah says, in any direction which he chooses. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he selected one he cannot retract it.

MISHNAH: If somebody was on the road and afraid lest it get dark but he knew of a tree or a wall and says, “my Sabbath rest shall be under it,” he did not say anything. “My Sabbath rest in its roots”, he walks from the place of his feet to the roots 2’000 cubits and from the roots to his house 2’000 cubits; it turns out that he may walk 4’000 cubits after nightfall. If he does not know or is not conversant with practice and said, my Sabbath rest shall be at my place, his place empowers him 2’000 cubits in every direction, circular according to Rebbi Ḥanania ben Antigonos. But the Sages say square like a square table, that he gain the corners.

Even though Rebbi Jehudah said, the main point of an eruv is by his feet, only that he should not sit in his house and say, my Sabbath rest should be acquired at place x. But he should go out to (the field) [the Sabbath boundary] and say, my Sabbath rest should be acquired at this place, and wait there until it gets dark; then return to his village. And it was stated thus: “It happened that the family of Bet Mamma and the family of Bet Gorion in Ruma were distributing dried figs in years of draught, that the poor of Shiḥin were going out, make eruv with their feet, waiting there until nightfall. The next day they were going there, ate there, and returned. And all their actions they were doing on the advice of the Sages.”

MISHNAH: One gives a fore-court to the city, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that a fore-court was mentioned only between two villages, if each of them has seventy cubits and a remainder, the fore-courts of both make it one. Similarly three villages forming a triangle, if between the two outer ones there are 141⅓ [cubits], the middle one makes all three to be one.

If from him to a river were 75 cubits. Two Amoraim, one said, he measures with a rope of 50 cubits and returns 25 cubits; but the other one said, he measures with a rope of 50 cubits and the remainder he measures with a rope of four cubits. If the river was narrow on top and wide below, up to 50 cubits one considers it as if full of dust and pebbles; otherwise one sees it inclining upwards and inclining downwards. If the river was bent, Rebbi Ḥasdai says, with telescopes he estimates in the plain and does the same with a mountain. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: only if the measure results in the mountain four hand-breadths as a place. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abuna in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Yudan has it in the name of Rav: If one holds it high above his head and the other by his feet, everybody agrees that one strip-measures. The high one over his head and the low one on his hips, everybody agrees that one strip-measures. Where do they disagree? On his heart; Rebbi Meïr says one strip-measures but the Sages say one does not strip-measure.

MISHNAH: Surveys may only be made by professionals. If one extended the place and restricted it at another, one listens to him who extends. Even a slave or a slave woman are trustworthy to say up to here is the Sabbath domain since the Sages said in these matters not to restrict but to be lenient.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph: “A village which is the property of one person and becomes owned by many,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One does not make an eruv in parts. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument is inverted since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? It was not said about this but about the following: Even a big city like Antioch, if it has a single gate one may make an eruv. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One does not make an eruv in parts. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if people in an alley put a beam (in) [at the entrance] of the alley then these are permitted and those are prohibited. If both of them put it up, both are prohibited. What does he do? He puts the beam at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. If five alleys opened into one alley and they put their beam in the middle of the alley then these are permitted and those are prohibited. If both of them put it up, both are prohibited. What does he do? He puts the beam at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. Rebbi Phineas immigrated here. He looked at the entrance of the market of the shearers and said to them, did you split your eruv? Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom told him, it was made to reinforce the houses.

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

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

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

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

It is obvious that “one makes eruv for courtyards and participates in alleys. If one makes eruv for courtyards, if they want to participate in the alley they may not participate. But if they participated in an alley, if they want to make it eruv they may do so.” And it was stated: “One makes eruv and participates simultaneously, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one makes eruv for courtyards or participates in alleys.” If they made eruv for the courtyards, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the alley. But if they participated in the alley they are permitted here and there. He told them, also you will cause the rules of eruv to be forgotten among us, for the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses.

MISHNAH: Two courtyards, one inside the other. If for the inner one they made an eruv but not the outer one, the inner one is permitted and the outer one forbidden. If the outer one but not the inner one, both are forbidden. If both made separate eruvin, both are permitted separately; Rebbi Aqiba forbids the outer one since the right of access makes it forbidden but the Sages say the right of access does not make it forbidden.

Where do we hold? If she is an adult, she becomes free by the signs [of puberty]. If she is underage, may an underage person transfer rights? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it following him who said that a minor may give heave. He answered him, but even according to him who says that a minor cannot give heave, the minor can acquire rights. This is acceptable following the opinion of the rabbis there. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what one finds in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what one robs from him is robbery because of the ways of peace; a nut or a pebble and he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift, since it is written, if a man give, a man’s gift is a gift, the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Robbing from him is never clear robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That which you say is to make one pay by a law suit; but to have to bring a sacrifice for a [false] oath everybody agrees only after he grew two pubic hairs. But following to the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written to his neighbor, only if he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They came to it by the rules of school children as we have stated: “School children’s buying is buying and their selling is selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “But he cannot transfer rights through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

MISHNAH: Anything and participation except water and salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, an eruv is a loaf of bread. Even if a se’ah was baked but is sliced one may not use it for eruv; a loaf the size of an as which is complete may be used for eruv. A person may give an obolus to a grocer or a baker to acquire part in his eruv, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him. They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him, because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement. Rebbi Jehudah explained, when has this been said? For eruv of domains, but eruvin of courtyards one makes with or without his agreement since one may give benefits to a person in his absence but impose obligations on him only in his presence.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that money does not transfer title as word of the Torah. Then even if he comes to the grocer? There is a difference, maybe he would forget and sell it. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: My father did not say so but: “But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him.” This implies that money does transfer title as word from the Torah. “They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him,” because the grocer will transfer title through a third person. “Because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement;” the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

It was stated: Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia says, if a balcony protrudes over the sea, one opens the floor covering, lowers down, and fills. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Only if the hole is four hand-breadths long, and only if it is four hand-breadths wide, and if the walls are ten hand-breadths high. There they are saying, even if the partitions are not ten hand-breadths high it is made like a funnel. Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Ḥiyya: One is permitted to fill but forbidden to pour out. He said to him, when we will ordain Sages, we shall ordain you with them. Rebbi Mana said, he shouted at him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, did he not say to him that one is permitted to fill, since he fills inside his partition, but forbidden to pour out, for he pours outside of his partition?

MISHNAH: If a courtyard be less that four [by four] cubits one may not pour water in it on the Sabbath unless one make for it a sump containing two seah below the hole, whether inside or outside; only that outside one has to cover but inside one does not have to cover. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one may pour water on the Sabbath into a sewer which is covered for four cubits in the public domain, but the Sages are saying, even from a roof or a courtyard 100 cubits [wide] one may not pour into the sewer but one may pour onto the roof and it flows down into the sewer. Courtyard and porch combine for four cubits. Two rows of apartments, one opposite the other, one side made a sump, the other did not make a sump. Those who made a sump are permitted, those who did not make a sump are forbidden.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob both said the same. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, on the Sabbath one may pour water into a sewer which is covered for four cubits in the public domain, but the Sages are saying, even from a roof or a courtyard 100 cubits [wide] one may not pour into the sewer.” Rebbi Meïr as it was stated: In large cities one may pour water into flows even though they are perforated, the words of Rebbi Meïr. And it was stated thus, if it was a drainpipe it is permitted; in the rainy season it is permitted; streaming spouts are forbidden and Bar Qappara stated, if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. This disagrees with Rav and he cannot explain it, since Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room.

MISHNAH: All rooftops of a town form one domain on condition that no roof be ten [hand-breadths] higher or ten lower, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say that each roof is a domain by itself. Rebbi Simeon says, not only rooftops but also courtyards and corrals are single domains for vessels which started the Sabbath in them but not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house.

MISHNAH: If a courtyard is open to the public domain, anybody who brings from it into a private domain or from a private domain into it is liable, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say from it into the public domain and from the public domain into it one is not liable since it is like karmelit.

MISHNAH: If somebody builds an upper floor connecting two houses, and similarly open bridges, one carries under them, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said that one may make an eruv for open alleys but the Sages forbid it.

MISHNAH: If somebody builds an upper floor connecting two houses, and similarly open bridges, one carries under them, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said that one may make an eruv for open alleys but the Sages forbid it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rav Huna said, no public domain is roofed. Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, did you not learn from the desert, and was the desert not roofed? Our Mishnah does not say so, but “and similarly open bridges, one carries under them the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” It only says “but the Sages forbid it;” therefore there is no liability of a purification offering.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rav Huna said, no public domain is roofed. Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, did you not learn from the desert, and was the desert not roofed? Our Mishnah does not say so, but “and similarly open bridges, one carries under them the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” It only says “but the Sages forbid it;” therefore there is no liability of a purification offering.

Women from where? And you should teach them to your sons, but not to your daughters. Anyone who is obliged to study Torah is obliged for tefillin, women who are not obliged to study Torah are not obliged for tefillin They objected, but did not Michal, the daughter of Saul, wear tefillin, and did not the wife of Jonah make the pilgrimage to the Temple, and the Sages did not object?. Rebbi Ḥisqiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Jonah’s wife was turned back, the Sages objected to Michal the daughter of Saul.

Women from where? And you should teach them to your sons, but not to your daughters. Anyone who is obliged to study Torah is obliged for tefillin, women who are not obliged to study Torah are not obliged for tefillin They objected, but did not Michal, the daughter of Saul, wear tefillin, and did not the wife of Jonah make the pilgrimage to the Temple, and the Sages did not object?. Rebbi Ḥisqiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Jonah’s wife was turned back, the Sages objected to Michal the daughter of Saul.

It was stated: Whether he be a man or a woman. They wanted to say, he who said that it is clear, is understandable. He who said that it is not clear, should it not be clear for a man but clear for a woman? Rebbi Eleazar said, who is he who stated “woman”? Rabban Gamliel! As it was stated: Tabi the slave of Rabban Gamliel was putting on tefillin and the Sages did not interfere with him. Did they here interfere with him? It is the same for a slave or a woman.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it is removed from the ground only a thread’s width he rolls it back to himself..” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted. There he says, it is forbidden to use the airspace within ten hand-breadths; and here he says so? Rebbi Joḥanan said, here there is no Rebbi Jehudah, only Rebbi Meïr, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a scroll but even a belt.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

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

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination. But the Sages say, he who did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth has to check on the Fourteenth; he who did not check on the Fourteenth has to check on the holiday. He who did not check on the holiday has to check after the holiday. And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking.

The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. As we have stated, “Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination. But the Sages say, if he did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth, he has to check on the Fourteenth.” Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more? (No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the Fourteenth, he has to check on the holiday. Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more?) No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the holiday, he has to check after the holiday.

“And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking.” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it. I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following: “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves”. And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread. And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it.

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].”

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, the second following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you are saying. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose and one should burn. In addition, we understand from the following: we see the rabbis, if a case comes before them, they say, go and suspend. Where do we find that Rebbi Simeon says, one burns? It is what we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon stated this. If you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension, have we not stated: “Suspended (pure) heave is burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, explain it that it is suspended because he does not intend to ask about it. He said to him, so also said Rebbi Yose: All we are occupied with here is with suspended [heave] about which he does not intend to ask; but suspended [heave] about which he intends to ask is pure. It was stated thus: “Suspended heave about which they said, is it pure? It is impure. If he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about it, it is pure.” What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then one cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ila, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but the second both following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Yose? He told him, if not following Rebbi Yose, we may say not following Rebbi Meïr since we find that Rebbi Yose is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Meïr is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. I asked him, even in a case where it is suspended by word of the Torah? He told me, if I explain it that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwelling, what do you have in your hand? It was stated: “For Gentiles’ dwelling one suspends, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Rebbi Meïr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, and so it was stated: “Suspended [and] impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time.” Should he not burn in the morning? Explain it that he was lazy and did not burn. You should know that this is so, since it was stated “impure”. Not because he was lazy and did not burn? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the impurity came to it at that moment and one cannot infer anything.

There, we have stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled, only he should not intend to cause a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it may not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, both of them explain the same verse: Perfect itshall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it. Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish.

MISHNAH: Any time one is permitted to eat one feeds it to domestic or wild animals or birds, or sells it to a Non-Jew, and one may have usufruct from it. If its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it, nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove. Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. But the Sages say, he makes crumbs and scatters them in the wind or throws it into the Sea.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I asked: What if he handed him the key? Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi said, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there: “If somebody hands over his key to a vulgar person, the house remains pure since he only entrusted him with safekeeping the key.” It was stated: Rebbi Simeon declares it impure.

There, we have stated: “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

It was stated “Boethos ben Zenon asked Rabban Gamliel and the Sages at Jabneh: May one make seriqin with figures on Passover? They told him, no, because a woman would spend time with it and it would become leavened. He said to them, then one should make it in a form. They told him, one would say, all seriqin are forbidden but the seriqin of Boethos ben Zenon are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, one may make seriqin like wafers; one does not make (wafers) [seriqin] as loaves.”

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking. Rebbi Aqiba says, neither all women nor all wood nor all ovens are equal. This is the principle, she shall beat it and wet it with cold water.

“Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking.” Rebbi Hoshaia stated: And another one comes and kneads in their stead. There are Tannaim who state: Three qab wheat or four qab barley. There are Tannaim who state: Four qab wheat or three qab barley. He who said, three qab wheat, if they have fat, or four qab barley, if they have no fat. He who said, four qab wheat, if they are soft, or three qab barley, if they are hard.

MISHNAH: Sour dough is to be burned but a person who eats it is not liable; cracked dough is to be burned and a person who eats it is liable for extirpation. What is sour dough? Like locusts’ antlers; cracked if its fissures joined one another, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say, in both cases one who eats it is liable. What is sour dough? Any which is pale like a man whose hair is standing up.

MISHNAH: If the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath one eliminates everything before the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, on their time. Rebbi Eleazar bar Sadoq says, heave before the Sabbath and profane on their time.

MISHNAH: Similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem and remembers that he has with him sacrificial meat, if he passed Mount Scopus he burns it on the spot, otherwise he returns and burns it before the citadel on altar wood. Up to what do they return? Rebbi Meïr says, in both cases the size of an olive; Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases the size of an egg. But the Sages say, sacrificial meat in the volume of an olive, but leavened matter in that of an egg.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only about a male horse because it kills [its owner] in war. Some say, because it runs after a female, and some say, because it stands still to urinate. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after a female, [this one] does not run after a female. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same, as it was stated: “If he carried domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a large domestic animal. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: A wild animal is like a small domestic animal.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince: With a question mark, “should everybody make himself a scholar?” The Sages themselves did not decree idleness.

MISHNAH: Also the Sages say, in Judea one did work on Passover Eve until noon, but in Galilee one did not work at all. In the night, the House of Shammai forbid, but the House of Hillel permit until sunrise.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, any work which one started before the Fourteenth he may finish on the Fourteenth. But he may not start one on the Fourteenth even if he can finish it. But the Sages say, three trades are permitted working on Passover Eve, the tailors, and the barbers, and the laundrymen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, also the cobblers.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, any work which one started before the Fourteenth he may finish on the Fourteenth,” but only what is needed on the holiday. “But he may not start one on the Fourteenth,” even something needed for the holiday. “But the Sages say, three trades are working on Passover Eve, the tailors,” since a non-professional may sew normally on the intermediate days of the holiday. “The barbers,” since nezirim and lepers shave on the holiday. “The laundrymen,” since usually people who ascend from impurity to purity launder on the holiday. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, also the cobblers,” since the pilgrims are used to repair their boots and sandals on the holiday. But the rabbis say, they were rich and made the pilgrimage on animals.

“How did they permit sycamore figs of dedicated trees? The Sages said to them, do you not agree with us that growth of dedicated [plants] is forbidden? They told them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of the strong men who came and took them by force.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated the tree stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder if somebody dedicates an orchard, may he reserve the growth for himself? Let us hear from the following: “After the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? This is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated: “It somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple, it is exempt from single berries, and from ˋoriah, and from the Fourth Year, but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal. The sanctity of the Sabbatical falls even on anything that is the Eternal’s.

“They gave peah from vegetables.” “They only gave for beets and leeks since these are harvested once. Rebbi Yose said, also cabbage.” It happened that the son of Ben Meviyayin gave peah of vegetables to the poor. His father came and found them standing at the door of the garden plot. He told them, put down what is in your hands, they put down what was in their hands. He gave them double from what had been tithed. Not that he was a miser, but he was concerned about the words of the Sages. Once the rabbis needed contributions; they sent to him Rebbi Aqiba and another rabbi with him. When they came to enter at his place they heard the voice of a lad saying to him, what shall we buy for you today? He said, endives, not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. They left him and went away. After all people had (acquired merit) [contributed], they came to him. He said to them, why did you not come to me first, as you were used to? They told him, we already came but heard the voice of a lad saying to you, what shall we buy for you today? You said, endives, not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. He said, you know what was between me and the lad; do you know what is between me and my Creator? Nevertheless, go and tell her to give you a modius of denars. They went and told her. She said to them, what did he say to you, heaped or flat? They answered her, he said it vaguely. She told them, I am giving you heaped. If he said so, I filled it. If not, I shall account for the excess from my dowry. When her husband heard this, he doubled her ketubaḥ.

MISHNAH: As it is done on weekdays it is done on the Sabbath, only that the priests rinse the courtyard against the wish of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah says, one was filling a cup of the mixture of blood and poured it in a single pouring on the altar, but the Sages did not agree with him.

MISHNAH: As it is done on weekdays it is done on the Sabbath, only that the priests rinse the courtyard against the wish of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah says, one was filling a cup of the mixture of blood and poured it in a single pouring on the altar, but the Sages did not agree with him.

It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Theudas of Rome led the people of Rome to eat helmeted kid-goat in the Passover nights, the Sages sent and said to him, if you were not Theudas, would we not put you in the ban? Who was Theudas? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, because he was providing for the rabbis. Are you not causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple? And anybody causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple has to be put in the ban.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same, as it was stated: “it was burned because of deep mourning? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them. And we have stated there: “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior, Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned, to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood.

“A person who is half slave and half freedman may not eat of his master’s.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a man who is half slave and half freedman preliminarily married a woman, one disregards his preliminary marriage. It is the same for divorce. Samuel says, one takes notice of his divorce. Samuel’s statement parallels Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated, “One who kidnapped a person half slave and half free Rebbi Jehudah declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable.”

And it was stated: “What is deep mourning? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What leniencies following Rebbi? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour, following the rabbis he is forbiddden the entire day. Leniencies following the rabbis? If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥuna, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning [in the night] is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening.” But they declared deep mourning during daytime as biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.

And it was stated: “What is deep mourning? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What leniencies following Rebbi? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following Rebbi he is forbidden only that hour, following the rabbis he is forbiddden the entire day. Leniencies following the rabbis? If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥuna, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi said, you know that deep mourning [in the night] is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening.” But they declared deep mourning during daytime as biblical. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.

Bar Qappara stated: Silence behoves the Sages, and so much more the fools. And also Solomon says, also a silent dolt is considered to be wise, and it is not necessary to say, a silent sage.

HALAKHAH: “In the afternoon of Passover Eve close to the time of afternoon prayers,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “On Sabbath Eve starting at the time of afternoon prayers one should not taste anything until nightfall in order to enter the Sabbath with an appetite, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, he continues eating until he finishes.” “One interrupts for the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, one does not interrupt.” “It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta were lying on couches in Acco on Sabbath Eve, and in the meantime the Sabbath became holy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yose ben Halaphta, do you want to interrupt for the Sabbath? He answered him, the entire day you preferred my words over those of Rebbi Jehudah, and now you are preferring the words of Rebbi Jehudah over mine, also to rape the queen in my palace? He said to him, therefore we shall not interrupt, that practice in Israel should not be fixed following R. Jehudah. They did not leave there before they fixed practice following Rebbi Yose.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: These are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose. But the words of the Sages, one spreads a cloth and makes qiddush. May one eat kinds of cookies? May one eat kinds of dried fruit? Rebbi Yudan the Prince bathed and became thirsty. He asked Rebbi Mana, since I am thirsty, may I drink? He told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A person may not taste anything before nightfall.

MISHNAH: Seven days before the Day of Atonement one isolates the High Priest from his house to the Parhedrin lodge and one prepares another Cohen because he might become disqualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, since maybe his wife would die, for it is said, he shall atone for himself and his house, his house means his wife. The Sages said to him, in this case the procedure never ends.

It happened that one person started the incense outside and brought it inside. When he left, he said to his father, even though you were interpreting all your days, you did not act until this man came and acted. He answered him, even though you were interpreting all our days, we acted only following the will of the Sages. I am wondering whether this man will have many days in the world. After a short time he died. But some are saying, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain.

It is written and he shall bring it inside the curtain, and put the incense in the fire before the Eternal, that he should not prepare outside and bring inside, since the Sadducees are saying, he shall prepare outside and then bring inside. If one does this before flesh and blood, a fortiori before the Omnipresent. Also it says, for in a cloud I shall appear over the cover. The Sages said to them, has it not already been said, he shall put the incense in the fire before the Eternal; only inside he puts it on. If it is so, why was it said, for in a cloud I shall appear over the cover? This teaches that he has to put in smoke-creating herb. From where that he has to add smoke-creating herb? The verse says, the incense shall cover the cover over the chest,lest he die. If he failed to add smoke-creating herb or left out any of its ingredients he has committed a deadly sin. Lest he die, that is the punishment. For in a cloud I shall appear over the cover, this is the warning.

MISHNAH: They brought him to the Parwa house, which was in the sacred domain. They spread a byssus sheet between him and the people; he sanctified hands and legs and undressed; Rebbi Meïr says, he undressed and sanctified hands and legs. He stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. In the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth twelve mina, and in the evening Indian of 800 denar, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth eighteen mina and in the evening of twelve mina, all together thirty mina. This he takes from Temple property; if he wants to add, he adds from his own.

[It was stated: “How does he confess? “I acted criminally, I rebelled, I sinned;’ and it says, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, criminal acts are intentional crimes, offenses are rebellions, sins are inadvertent actions. After he confesses about criminal acts he turns around and confesses about inadvertent acts? But he confesses as follows: Please Hashem, I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You, I and my house (etc..) [and the sons of Aaron. As is written in the Torah of Moses as follows, for on that day he shall, etc. They, answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”.] And so we find that confessors do confess. David said, we and our fathers sinned, we acted criminally and we led to bad behavior. His son Solomon said, [we sinned,] we acted criminally, behaved badly. Daniel said, we sinned, we actedcriminally, we led to bad behavior, and we rebelled. Also he was confessing thus: I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You. What means this which Moses said, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc.? But since he confesses to criminal rebellious acts, it is as if they were inadvertent sins before Him.”

HALAKHAH: “The following are for shame: The family Garmu.” “The family Garmu were experts in preparing the shew-bread and its removal from the oven, but they did not want to teach. They sent and brought craftsmen from Alexandria who were experts in preparing the shew-bread but were not experts in its removal from the oven. The family Garmu were heating from within and removing from the outside, and it did not become moldy. But those were heating from the outside and removing from the inside, and it became moldy. When the Sages realized the situation, they said, everything which the Holy One, praise to Him, created, he created to His glory; all work of the Eternal is for Himself. They sent after them, but they refused to come until they doubled their wages. They used to take twelve mina, so they gave them twenty-four. Rebbi Jehudah says, they used to take 24, so they gave them 48. They asked them, why do you not want to teach? They answered them, there is a tradition among us from our forefathers that this Temple will be destroyed in the future. Others should not learn and prepare the same before their foreign worship. In the following matter one mentions them for praise, that in the hands of their children white bread was never found, so people should not say, from the preparation of shew-bread they are eating.”

“The family Eutinos were experts in preparing the incense and the smoke-creating herb, but they did not want to teach. They sent and brought craftsmen from Alexandria who were experts in preparing the incense but were not experts in the smoke-creating herb. The family Eutinos’s was going straight up, and spread, and descended. But theirs was immediately spreading. When the Sages realized the situation, they said, everything which the Holy One, praise to Him, created, he created to His glory; as it is said, all which is called by My Name, etc. They sent after them, but they refused to come, etc., up to “before their foreign worship.” In the following matter one mentions them for praise, that no woman of any of them ever went out perfumed. Not only that, but if one of them married a woman from outside, he contracted with her that she should not use perfume.

The colleagues say, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other. Everybody agrees about the bull of the Anointed or the community, unless there be one giving of each of them. The colleagues say, qualified parts which were mixed up with disqualified parts, only if there was a giving of the qualified. Where do they disagree? About the blood of two purification sacrifices which were mixed up. Rebbi says, I am saying one investigates the blood; if there is enough for one giving for each one it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. But the Sages say, even if there is only one giving [for both of them] it is qualified. In Rebbi’s opinion, there is a measure for givings, in the Sages’ opinion there is no measure for givings. This implies, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other.

The colleagues say, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other. Everybody agrees about the bull of the Anointed or the community, unless there be one giving of each of them. The colleagues say, qualified parts which were mixed up with disqualified parts, only if there was a giving of the qualified. Where do they disagree? About the blood of two purification sacrifices which were mixed up. Rebbi says, I am saying one investigates the blood; if there is enough for one giving for each one it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. But the Sages say, even if there is only one giving [for both of them] it is qualified. In Rebbi’s opinion, there is a measure for givings, in the Sages’ opinion there is no measure for givings. This implies, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other.

It was stated: “One commits larceny with blood, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated. You only have extirpation of persons from it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon.