sages

If the wife of a haver left the wife of an am haaretz grinding grain in her house, if the handmill stopped turning, the house is unclean. But if the handmill did not stop turning, that part of the house which she can stretch out her hand and touch is unclean. If there were two women, the house is unclean in either case, since while the one is grinding, the other can go about touching, the words of Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where she can stretch out her hand and touch it.

One who left his clothes in the cubbies of the bath house attendants: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that they are clean, But the sages say: [they are not clean] unless he gives him the key or the seal or unless he left some sign on them. One who left his clothes from one wine-pressing to the next, his clothes remain clean. If he left them with an Israelite [the clothes are unclean] unless he says, "I have watched over them carefully."

One who was clean and had given up the thought of eating [pure food]: Rabbi Judah says that it remains clean, since it is usual for unclean persons to keep away from it. But the sages say that it is deemed unclean. If his hands were clean and he had given up the thought of eating [pure food], even though he says, "I know that my hands have not become unclean," his hands are unclean, since the hands are always busy.

A woman entered her house to bring out some bread for a poor man and when she came out she found him standing at the side of loaves of terumah; Similarly a woman went out and found her friend raking out coals under a cooking pot of terumah: Rabbi Akiva says that they are unclean, But the sages say that they are clean. Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila: but why does Rabbi Akiva rule that they are unclean and the sages rule that they are clean? Because women are gluttonous and each may be suspected of uncovering her neighbor's cooking pot to get to know what she is cooking.

A woman entered her house to bring out some bread for a poor man and when she came out she found him standing at the side of loaves of terumah; Similarly a woman went out and found her friend raking out coals under a cooking pot of terumah: Rabbi Akiva says that they are unclean, But the sages say that they are clean. Rabbi Eliezer ben Pila: but why does Rabbi Akiva rule that they are unclean and the sages rule that they are clean? Because women are gluttonous and each may be suspected of uncovering her neighbor's cooking pot to get to know what she is cooking.

One who left his house open and found it open, or locked and found it locked, or open and found it locked, it remains clean. But if he left it closed and found it open: Rabbi Meir says that it is unclean; But the sages say that it remains clean, since, though thieves had been there, they may have changed their mind and gone away.

If a stick is completely covered with unclean liquid, as soon as it has touched the [water in the] mikveh, it becomes clean, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: only when the whole of it is immersed. A flow from one vessel to the other or a slope of dripping moisture does not serve as a connective either for uncleanness or for cleanness. A pool of water serves as a connective in respect both of uncleanness and cleanness.

At what stage do olives become susceptible to uncleanness? When they exude the moisture [produced] by [their lying in] the vat but not the one [produced while they are still] in the basket, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Rabbi Shimon says: the minimum time prescribed for proper exudation is three days. Bet Hillel says: as soon as three olives stick together. Rabban Gamaliel says: as soon as their preparation is finished, and the sages agree with his view.

When their preparation is finished behold they are susceptible to uncleanness. If an unclean liquid fell upon them they become unclean. The sap that issues from them: Rabbi Eliezer says it is clean, But the sages say that it is unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: they did not dispute the ruling that sap that issues from olives is clean. But about what did they dispute? About that which comes from the vat: That Rabbi Eliezer says is clean And the sages say is unclean.

When their preparation is finished behold they are susceptible to uncleanness. If an unclean liquid fell upon them they become unclean. The sap that issues from them: Rabbi Eliezer says it is clean, But the sages say that it is unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: they did not dispute the ruling that sap that issues from olives is clean. But about what did they dispute? About that which comes from the vat: That Rabbi Eliezer says is clean And the sages say is unclean.

The case of a doubt about drawn water which the sages have declared clean; If there is a doubt whether [three logs of drawn water] fell into the mikveh or not, Or even if they did fall in, there is a doubt whether [the mikveh] contained forty seahs or not, Or if there were two mikvehs one of which contained forty seahs and the other did not, and drawn water fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, In such a doubt it is accounted clean, because there exists [a possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean]. If they both contained less than forty seahs, and [drawn water] fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, in such a doubt it is accounted unclean, because there exists no [possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean].

Rabbi Eliezer says: a quarter-log of drawn water in the beginning makes the mikveh invalid, and three logs on the surface of the water. But the sages say: both in the beginning and at the end, the measure [which makes the mikveh invalid] is three logs.

Rabbi Yose says: two mikvehs neither of which contains forty seahs and a log and a half [of drawn water] fell into this one and a log and a half into this one, and then they are mixed together, they remain valid, since they had never been called as invalid. But if there is a mikveh holding less than forty seahs, and three logs [of drawn water] fell into it, and it was then divided into two, it is invalid, since it had already been called invalid. Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, for Rabbi Joshua used to say: any mikveh containing less than forty seahs into which three logs [of drawn water] fell and from which a kortov was withdrawn becomes valid, since the three logs have also been diminished. But the sages say: it always remains invalid until the amount of its former contents and a little more are removed.

If a cistern is full of drawn water and a channel leads into it and out of it, it continues to be invalid until it can be reckoned that there does not remain in it three logs of the former [water]. If two men each poured a log and a half [of drawn water] into a mikveh, or if one wrung out his clothes and so poured in [water] from several places, or if one emptied out a water-jug and so poured in [water]from several places, Rabbi Akiva declares it valid, But the sages declare it invalid. Rabbi Akiva said: they did not say "if they poured in," rather "if one poured in." But they said: they said neither thus nor thus, but rather "if there fell in three logs [of drawn water]."

The outlet of a bath-basin: if it is in the center, it renders [the bath] invalid [as a mikveh]; but if it is at the side, it does not render it invalid, because then it is like one mikveh adjoining another mikveh, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: if the bath-basin can contain a quarter-log of [water] before it reaches the outlet, it is valid; but if not, it is not valid. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: if the outlet can contain any amount of [water], it is invalid.

Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination.

Who is regarded as "virgin"? Any woman who has never yet observed a blood flow, even if she is married. "A woman in pregnancy"? One whose fetus is notice. "A nursing woman"? Until she has weaned her child. If she gave her child to a nursing woman, if she weaned him, or if he died: Rabbi Meir says: she conveys uncleanness retroactively for twenty-four hours; But the sages say: it suffices for her [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observation of the flow].

What is meant by "after a time"? As long as it takes to get down from the bed and wash her "face." [If blood was found some time] after she causes uncleanness retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours but she does not cause the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. Rabbi Akiva says: she also causes the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. And the sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that one who saw a bloodstain defiles the man who had intercourse with her.

The sages spoke of a woman through a metaphor: A chamber, a vestibule and an upper chamber. The blood of the chamber is unclean, If blood is found in the vestibule, and there arises a doubt about its character, it is deemed unclean, because it is presumed to have come from the source.

Five kinds of blood in a woman are unclean: red, black, like bright crocus, like earthy water, or like diluted wine. Bet Shammai says: also like fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat. But Bet Hillel declares these clean. One that is yellow: Akavia ben Mahalalel declares unclean And the sages declare clean. Rabbi Meir said: even if it does not convey uncleanness as a bloodstain it conveys uncleanness as a liquid. Rabbi Yose says: it does neither the one nor the other.

If a woman miscarried an object that was like a rind, like a hair, like earth, like red flies, let her put it in water: If it dissolves she is unclean, But if it does not she is clean. If she miscarried an object in the shape of fishes, locusts, or any forbidden things or creeping things: If there was blood with them she is unclean, If not, she is clean. If she miscarried an object in the shape of a beast, a wild animal or a bird, whether clean or unclean: If it was a male she sits in uncleanness as she would for a male; And if it was a female she sits in uncleanness as she would for a female. But if the sex is unknown she sits in uncleanness for both male and female, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: anything that has not the shape of a human being cannot be regarded as a human child.

If a woman miscarried on the fortieth day, she need not be concerned that it was a valid childbirth. On the forty-first day, she sits as for both a male and a female and as for a menstruant. Rabbi Ishmael says: [if she miscarried on] the forty-first day she sits as for a male and as for a menstruant, But if on the eighty-first day she sits as for a male and a female and a menstruant, because a male is fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female on the eighty-first day. But the sages say: the fashioning of the male and the fashioning of the female both take forty-one days.

The sages spoke of [the physical development of] a woman in a parable: an unripe fig, a fig in its early ripening stage and a ripe fig. "An unripe fig": while she is yet a child; "A fig in its early ripening stage": when she is in her youth (naarut). In both ages her father is entitled to anything she finds and to her handiwork and to the right of invalidating her vows. "A ripe fig" as soon as she becomes of majority age (bogeret), her father has no longer any right over her.

If the lower sign appears before the upper sign, she can perform halitzah or yibbum. If the upper sign appears before the lower sign, even though this is impossible: Rabbi Meir says: she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. And the sages say: she can perform halitzah or yibbum. For they have said: it is possible for the lower sign to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign.

If a girl has grown two pubic hairs she may perform either halitzah or contract levirate marriage, and she is obligated in all the commandments in the Torah. So too if a boy has grown two pubic hairs, he is obligated in all of the commandments in the Torah. He is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he has grown two hairs until the time when his beard forms a circle. This refers to the lower, and not to the upper one, but the sages spoke using a euphemism. A girl who has grown two hairs may no longer refuse the marriage. Rabbi Judah says: [she may refuse] until the black [hairs] predominate.

A woman who found a blood-stain is in a spoiled condition and must take into consideration the possibility that it was due to zivah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: in the case of blood-stains there is no [need to consider the possibility of their being] due to zivah.

All bloodstains that come from Rekem are clean. Rabbi Judah declares them unclean, because the people who live there are proselytes though misguided. Those that come from non-Jews are clean. Those that come from Israelites or from Samaritans: Rabbi Meir declares them unclean, But the sages declare them clean because they are not suspected in regard to their stains.

It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood." She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean. He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, "And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood" blood but not a bloodstain.

If three women slept in one bed, and blood was found under the middle one, they are all unclean. If it was found under the inner one, the two inner ones are unclean while the outer one is clean. If it was found under the outer one, the two outer ones are unclean while the inner one is clean. Rabbi Judah said: when is this so? When they passed by way of the foot of the bed, but if they passed across it, they are all unclean. If one of them examined herself and was found clean, she remains clean while the two others are unclean. If two examined themselves and were found to be clean they remain clean while the third is unclean. If the three examined themselves and were found to be clean, they are all unclean. To what may this be compared? To an unclean heap that was mixed up with two clean heaps: If they examined one of them and found it to be clean, it is clean while the two others are unclean; If they examined two of the heaps and found them to be clean, they are clean while the third one is unclean; And if they examined the three and they were all found to be clean, they are all unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir, For Rabbi Meir used to say: any object that is presumed to be unclean remains unclean until it is known to you where the uncleanness is. But the sages say: one continues the examination of the heap until one reaches bedrock or virgin soil.

If a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [from impurity], and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is in a presumptive state of cleanness. If she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was unclean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [impurity], and after a time she examined herself and found that she was clean, she is in a presumptive state of uncleanness. [But] she conveys uncleanness for twenty-four hours retrospectively or during the time between the last and the previous examination. But if she had a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. Rabbi Judah says: Any woman who did not ascertain her separation [from impurity] is regarded as being in a presumptive state of uncleanness. But the sages say: even if she examined herself on the second day of her menstruation and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation, and after a time she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is regarded as being in a presumptive state of cleanness.

If one blew on lentils in order to test whether they were good: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one ate sesame with his finger, with regard to the liquid that was on his hand: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one hid his fruit in water from thieves, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once it happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig cakes in water from the robbers, and the sages declared that they were not susceptible to uncleanness. If one put his fruit in the stream of a river to make it come down with him, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.

If one blew on lentils in order to test whether they were good: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one ate sesame with his finger, with regard to the liquid that was on his hand: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one hid his fruit in water from thieves, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once it happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig cakes in water from the robbers, and the sages declared that they were not susceptible to uncleanness. If one put his fruit in the stream of a river to make it come down with him, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.

If one blew on lentils in order to test whether they were good: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one ate sesame with his finger, with regard to the liquid that was on his hand: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one hid his fruit in water from thieves, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once it happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig cakes in water from the robbers, and the sages declared that they were not susceptible to uncleanness. If one put his fruit in the stream of a river to make it come down with him, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.

If one found produce on the road: If the majority [of the inhabitants] gathered produce into their homes, he is exempt [from tithes]; If [the majority gathered it] for selling in the market, he is liable [for tithes]; If they were half and half, the produce is demai. A granary into which both Israelites and non-Jews put their produce, If the majority were non-Jews, [the produce must be considered] certainly untithed; If the majority were Israelites, [it must be considered] demai; If they were half and half, [it must be considered] certainly untithed, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: even if they were all non-Jews, and only one Israelite put his produce into the granary, [it must be considered] demai.

If one sprinkled [the floor of] his house [with water] and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] from the stones [on the floor], it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one washed his garment in a tub and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] of itself, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one put [produce] in sand for it to become moist, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. It happened with the men of Mahoz that they used to moisten [their produce] with sand, and the sages said to them: if you have always acted in this manner, you have never prepared your food in purity.

Produce onto which a leak [from a roof] fell and he mixed it up in order that it might become dry [quickly]: Rabbi Shimon says: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.

If they were both closing or opening [a door], [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: [he is not unclean] unless one was shutting and the other opening [it]. If one was lifting the other out of a pit [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Judah says: only if the clean person was pulling out the unclean one. If they were twisting ropes together [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: unless the one pulled one way and the other pulled the other way. If they were both weaving together, whether they were standing or sitting, or grinding wheat, [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Shimon says [the clean person] in every case is pure, except where they [both] were grinding with a hand-mill. If they [both] were unloading or loading a donkey, they are unclean if the load was heavy, but clean if the load was light. In all cases, however, they are clean for members of the synagogue, but are unclean for terumah.

If they were both closing or opening [a door], [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: [he is not unclean] unless one was shutting and the other opening [it]. If one was lifting the other out of a pit [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Judah says: only if the clean person was pulling out the unclean one. If they were twisting ropes together [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: unless the one pulled one way and the other pulled the other way. If they were both weaving together, whether they were standing or sitting, or grinding wheat, [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Shimon says [the clean person] in every case is pure, except where they [both] were grinding with a hand-mill. If they [both] were unloading or loading a donkey, they are unclean if the load was heavy, but clean if the load was light. In all cases, however, they are clean for members of the synagogue, but are unclean for terumah.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

Anything which disqualifies terumah defiles hands with a second degree of uncleanness. One [unwashed] hand defiles the other hand, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has second degree of uncleanness cannot convey second degree of uncleanness. He said to them: But do not the Holy Scriptures which have second degree of uncleanness defile the hands? They said to him: the laws of the Torah may not be argued from the laws of the scribes, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from the laws of the Torah, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from [other] laws of the scribes.

On that day they said: all animal sacrifices which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering are [nevertheless] valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. [This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him.

All kinds of pits can be defiled and defile but do not join together. The pits of fresh dates, even when detached [from the edible part], do join together; but those of dried dates do not join together. Accordingly, the stems of dried dates do join together, but that of fresh dates do not join together. If only part of a pit is detached, then only that part near the edible portion joins together. [Similarly] with a bone on which there is flesh, only that part that is close to the edible part joins together. [If a bone] has flesh only upon one of its sides: Rabbi Ishmael says: we take it as though [the flesh] encompasses it like a ring; But the sages say: [only] that part close to the edible part is included [as is the case] for example with savory, hyssop and thyme.

When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live. If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live. Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness.

A bee-hive: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is treated as if it were land; and one can write a prozbul on it security, it is also not susceptible to uncleanness as long as it remains in its own place, and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to a sin-offering. But the sages say: it is not to be treated as if it were land, and one many not write a prozbul on its security; it is susceptible even if it remains in its own place; and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is exempt [from a sin-offering].

MISHNAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening? From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah, until the end of the first night watch are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn. It happened that his (Rabban Gamliel’s) sons returned from a wedding feast and told him: We did not recite the Shema‘. He said to them: If dawn has not yet come then you are obligated to recite. Not only that, but everywhere the Sages said “until midnight”, the obligation is to the start of dawn. The obligation of burning fats and limbs on the altar [and eating of the Passover sacrifice] is until the start of dawn. All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only could be eaten until the first dawn. In that case, why did the Sages say, only until midnight? In order to remove people from sin.

MISHNAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening? From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah, until the end of the first night watch are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn. It happened that his (Rabban Gamliel’s) sons returned from a wedding feast and told him: We did not recite the Shema‘. He said to them: If dawn has not yet come then you are obligated to recite. Not only that, but everywhere the Sages said “until midnight”, the obligation is to the start of dawn. The obligation of burning fats and limbs on the altar [and eating of the Passover sacrifice] is until the start of dawn. All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only could be eaten until the first dawn. In that case, why did the Sages say, only until midnight? In order to remove people from sin.

MISHNAH: When does one start to read the Shema in the evening? From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah, until the end of the first night watch are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says until the first sign of dawn. It happened that his (Rabban Gamliel’s) sons returned from a wedding feast and told him: We did not recite the Shema‘. He said to them: If dawn has not yet come then you are obligated to recite. Not only that, but everywhere the Sages said “until midnight”, the obligation is to the start of dawn. The obligation of burning fats and limbs on the altar [and eating of the Passover sacrifice] is until the start of dawn. All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only could be eaten until the first dawn. In that case, why did the Sages say, only until midnight? In order to remove people from sin.

What is dusk? Rebbi Tanḥuma said (it is comparable) to a drop of blood on the tip of a sword. The drop splits here and there, that is dusk. What is dusk? From after sundown the time a man needs to walk half a mil, the words of Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Yose said: dusk is a moment and the sages could not determine it.

Rebbi said: There are four watches during daytime and four at nighttime. The period is one twenty-fourth of an hour. The time is one twenty-fourth of a period. The moment is one twenty-fourth of a time. How much is a moment? Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥelbo said: as long as one needs to pronounce it. The Sages say the moment is like the blink of an eyelash. Samuel did formulate: the moment is one in 56,848 of an hour. Rebbi Nathan said three: (Jud. 7:19) “at the start of the middle watch.”

New Section. “But the sages say until midnight.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows the Sages. Rebbi Yasa commanded his colleagues: if you want to study Torah then you should recite the Shema‘ before midnight and then study. His words imply that the practice follows the Sages. His words imply that one may speak after Emet Weyaẓiv. It was stated: He who reads the Shema‘ in the synagogue during the morning service has fulfilled his duty; during the evening service he did not fulfill his duty. What is the difference between him who reads in the morning and him who reads in the evening? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Joseph: Why did they say, a man has to read the Shema‘ in his house in the evening? In order to make evil spirits flee. His words imply that one may not speak after Emet Weyaẓiv. The words of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥmani say the same. When R. Samuel ben Naḥmani descended for the intercalation, he was received by Rebbi Jacob the groats miller. Rebbi Zeïra was hiding among the crates to hear how he read [the Shema‘]; he read it over and over again until he drifted away in sleep. What is the reason? Rebbi Aḥa and his father-in-law Rebbi Taḥlifa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani (Ps. 4:5): “Tremble, do not sin, talk in your hearts on your couches and be silent, Selah.”

New Section. “But the sages say until midnight.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows the Sages. Rebbi Yasa commanded his colleagues: if you want to study Torah then you should recite the Shema‘ before midnight and then study. His words imply that the practice follows the Sages. His words imply that one may speak after Emet Weyaẓiv. It was stated: He who reads the Shema‘ in the synagogue during the morning service has fulfilled his duty; during the evening service he did not fulfill his duty. What is the difference between him who reads in the morning and him who reads in the evening? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Joseph: Why did they say, a man has to read the Shema‘ in his house in the evening? In order to make evil spirits flee. His words imply that one may not speak after Emet Weyaẓiv. The words of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥmani say the same. When R. Samuel ben Naḥmani descended for the intercalation, he was received by Rebbi Jacob the groats miller. Rebbi Zeïra was hiding among the crates to hear how he read [the Shema‘]; he read it over and over again until he drifted away in sleep. What is the reason? Rebbi Aḥa and his father-in-law Rebbi Taḥlifa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani (Ps. 4:5): “Tremble, do not sin, talk in your hearts on your couches and be silent, Selah.”

New Section. “But the sages say until midnight.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows the Sages. Rebbi Yasa commanded his colleagues: if you want to study Torah then you should recite the Shema‘ before midnight and then study. His words imply that the practice follows the Sages. His words imply that one may speak after Emet Weyaẓiv. It was stated: He who reads the Shema‘ in the synagogue during the morning service has fulfilled his duty; during the evening service he did not fulfill his duty. What is the difference between him who reads in the morning and him who reads in the evening? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Joseph: Why did they say, a man has to read the Shema‘ in his house in the evening? In order to make evil spirits flee. His words imply that one may not speak after Emet Weyaẓiv. The words of Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥmani say the same. When R. Samuel ben Naḥmani descended for the intercalation, he was received by Rebbi Jacob the groats miller. Rebbi Zeïra was hiding among the crates to hear how he read [the Shema‘]; he read it over and over again until he drifted away in sleep. What is the reason? Rebbi Aḥa and his father-in-law Rebbi Taḥlifa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani (Ps. 4:5): “Tremble, do not sin, talk in your hearts on your couches and be silent, Selah.”

Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the Sages and acts upon his opinion? Did not Rebbi Meïr disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion, did not Rebbi Aqiba disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion?

Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the Sages and acts upon his opinion? Did not Rebbi Meïr disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion, did not Rebbi Aqiba disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion?

Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the Sages and acts upon his opinion? Did not Rebbi Meïr disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion, did not Rebbi Aqiba disagree with the Sages and not act upon his opinion?

So we find that Rebbi Meïr disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. We have stated: One rubs olentia on a sick person on the Sabbath; but only if it was mixed with oil and wine before Sabbath eve. But if he did not mix it before Sabbath eve it is forbidden. We have stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said: Rebbi Meïr did allow to mix wine and oil and to rub it onto a sick persion on Sabbath. When he fell sick, we wanted to prepare the same for him but he did not let us do it. We said to him: Our teacher, are you going to invalidate your words when your life is in danger? He said to us: even though I am lenient for others, I am stringent for myself because my colleagues disagree with me.

So we find that Rebbi Aqiba disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. As we have stated there (Mishnah Ahilot 2:6): “Spine and skull from two dead bodies, a limb composed of limbs of two dead bodies, limbs taken from two living persons, Rebbi Aqiba declares them to be impure and the Sages declare them to be pure.” We have stated: “It happened that they brought a chest full of bones from Kefar Tabi to Lod and deposited it in the open air [the courtyard] of the synagogue. Theodoros the physician entered and with him all physicians. Theodoros declared that there was no complete spine from one dead person and no complete skull from one dead person. They said: Since we have here some who declare this pure and others who declare it impure, let us vote upon it. They started with Rebbi Aqiba and he declared it to be pure. They said: Since you had declared it impure, but now you vote for it to be pure, it is pure.”

So we find that Rebbi Aqiba disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. As we have stated there (Mishnah Ahilot 2:6): “Spine and skull from two dead bodies, a limb composed of limbs of two dead bodies, limbs taken from two living persons, Rebbi Aqiba declares them to be impure and the Sages declare them to be pure.” We have stated: “It happened that they brought a chest full of bones from Kefar Tabi to Lod and deposited it in the open air [the courtyard] of the synagogue. Theodoros the physician entered and with him all physicians. Theodoros declared that there was no complete spine from one dead person and no complete skull from one dead person. They said: Since we have here some who declare this pure and others who declare it impure, let us vote upon it. They started with Rebbi Aqiba and he declared it to be pure. They said: Since you had declared it impure, but now you vote for it to be pure, it is pure.”

So we find that Rebbi Simeon disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. As we have stated there (Mishnah Ševiït 9:1) “Rebbi Simeon says: all aftergrowth is allowed except the aftergrowth of cabbage because nothing similar grows wild. But the Sages say that all aftergrowth is forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai acted on this in a Sabbatical year. He saw a man harvesting aftergrowth. He said to him: Is that not forbidden, is that not aftergrowth? The man answered him back: Are you not the one who allows it? He retorted: Do not my colleagues disagree with me? He recited over him (Eccl. 10:6): “He who breaches a fence may be bitten by a snake”, and this is what happened to that man.

So we find that Rebbi Simeon disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. As we have stated there (Mishnah Ševiït 9:1) “Rebbi Simeon says: all aftergrowth is allowed except the aftergrowth of cabbage because nothing similar grows wild. But the Sages say that all aftergrowth is forbidden.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai acted on this in a Sabbatical year. He saw a man harvesting aftergrowth. He said to him: Is that not forbidden, is that not aftergrowth? The man answered him back: Are you not the one who allows it? He retorted: Do not my colleagues disagree with me? He recited over him (Eccl. 10:6): “He who breaches a fence may be bitten by a snake”, and this is what happened to that man.

And Rabban Gamliel disagreed with the Sages and did act on his own opinion! There is a difference here since the recitiation of the Shema‘ is for study. But then they could have read also after the start of dawn. Some want to say that in the other cases it was possible to uphold the words of the Sages. But here it was after midnight and they could no longer fulfill the precept of the Sages; so he told his sons to act according to his opinion.

And Rabban Gamliel disagreed with the Sages and did act on his own opinion! There is a difference here since the recitiation of the Shema‘ is for study. But then they could have read also after the start of dawn. Some want to say that in the other cases it was possible to uphold the words of the Sages. But here it was after midnight and they could no longer fulfill the precept of the Sages; so he told his sons to act according to his opinion.

And Rabban Gamliel disagreed with the Sages and did act on his own opinion! There is a difference here since the recitiation of the Shema‘ is for study. But then they could have read also after the start of dawn. Some want to say that in the other cases it was possible to uphold the words of the Sages. But here it was after midnight and they could no longer fulfill the precept of the Sages; so he told his sons to act according to his opinion.

We have stated “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”. Some people do not formulate “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”. Who formulates “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”? The Sages. Who does not formulate “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”? Rebbi Eliezer. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It is written here (Ex. 12:8) “in the night”, and it is written there (Ex. 12:29) “in the night”. Just as there it means midnight, so also here it means midnight. Rebbi Ḥuna says: “The eating of the Passover sacrifice” cannot be here even for the Sages since we have stated (Pesaḥim 10:9) “the Passover sacrifice after midnight makes one’s hands impure.”

We have stated “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”. Some people do not formulate “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”. Who formulates “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”? The Sages. Who does not formulate “the eating of the Passover sacrifice”? Rebbi Eliezer. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? It is written here (Ex. 12:8) “in the night”, and it is written there (Ex. 12:29) “in the night”. Just as there it means midnight, so also here it means midnight. Rebbi Ḥuna says: “The eating of the Passover sacrifice” cannot be here even for the Sages since we have stated (Pesaḥim 10:9) “the Passover sacrifice after midnight makes one’s hands impure.”

“All sacrifices that can be eaten during one full day only,” these are the holiest of holies. “In that case, why did the Sages say, etc.?” If you would say until the start of dawn, one might think that dawn did not yet start and it would turn out that he eats in sin. When you say to him: “only until midnight,” even if he does eat after midnight he will not incur guilt.

Rebbi Ismael did formulate: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sages all are severe. You can realize that this is so since we have stated (Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:5): “If he says there is no obligation of Tefillin against the words of the Torah he is not criminally liable. If he says that Tefillin have five sections, to add to the words of the Sages, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Ada, in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets, since it is written (Micah 2:6): “Do not preach, they preach; Do not preach to those, that shame does not reach you.” And it is written (Micah 2:11) “I shall preach to you for wine and liquor.” The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two of his palmatars to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήθιον, do not believe him. About the other one he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal, believe him without seal and σημαντήθιον. So about a prophet is written (Deut. 13:2) “He gives you a sign or miracle.” But here it is written (Deut. 17:11): “According to the teachings that they will teach you”.

Rebbi Ismael did formulate: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sages all are severe. You can realize that this is so since we have stated (Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:5): “If he says there is no obligation of Tefillin against the words of the Torah he is not criminally liable. If he says that Tefillin have five sections, to add to the words of the Sages, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Ada, in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets, since it is written (Micah 2:6): “Do not preach, they preach; Do not preach to those, that shame does not reach you.” And it is written (Micah 2:11) “I shall preach to you for wine and liquor.” The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two of his palmatars to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήθιον, do not believe him. About the other one he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal, believe him without seal and σημαντήθιον. So about a prophet is written (Deut. 13:2) “He gives you a sign or miracle.” But here it is written (Deut. 17:11): “According to the teachings that they will teach you”.

Rebbi Ismael did formulate: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sages all are severe. You can realize that this is so since we have stated (Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:5): “If he says there is no obligation of Tefillin against the words of the Torah he is not criminally liable. If he says that Tefillin have five sections, to add to the words of the Sages, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Ada, in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets, since it is written (Micah 2:6): “Do not preach, they preach; Do not preach to those, that shame does not reach you.” And it is written (Micah 2:11) “I shall preach to you for wine and liquor.” The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two of his palmatars to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήθιον, do not believe him. About the other one he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal, believe him without seal and σημαντήθιον. So about a prophet is written (Deut. 13:2) “He gives you a sign or miracle.” But here it is written (Deut. 17:11): “According to the teachings that they will teach you”.

MISHNAH: One must mention the Exodus in the night. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to them: Here I am about 70 years old and I could not succed in proving that the Exodus must be mentioned every night until Ben Zoma derived it from the verse (Deut. 16:3): “… that you should remember the day of your leaving Egypt the entire days of your life.” The days of your life - the days. The entire days of your life - the nights. But the Sages say, the days of your life - this world; The entire days of your life - this includes the times of the Messiah.

Women from where? (Deut. 11:19) “And you should teach them to your sons”, and 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 the Kushi, 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 forbade it to Michal the daughter of Kushi.

Women from where? (Deut. 11:19) “And you should teach them to your sons”, and 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 the Kushi, 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 forbade it to Michal the daughter of Kushi.

The Mishnah deals with a place where there is no water and follows Rebbi Meïr, as it is stated (Tosephta Berakhot 2:13): “He who had qeri but no water to immerse himself reads the Shema‘ but not so that he himself can hear it, but he does not recite any benediction before or after; these are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he reads so that he himself can hear it and recites benedictions before and after.”

It happened that one student came and asked Rebbi Joshua: What is about evening prayer? He said to him: It is voluntary. He asked Rabban Gamliel: What is about evening prayer? He said to him: It is obligatory. He said to him: But Rebbi Joshua told me that it was voluntary. He said to him: Tomorrow, when I enter the assembly hall, stand up and ask me about this practice. The next day, this student stood up and asked Rabban Gamliel: What is about evening prayer? He said to him: It is obligatory. He said to him: But Rebbi Joshua told me that it was voluntary. Rabban Gamliel said to Rebbi Joshua: Are you the one who says it is voluntary? He answered him: No. He said to him: Stand up on your feet so that they may testify against you. Then Rabban Gamliel was sitting down and lecturing while Rebbi Joshua was standing up until the people started talking and said to Rebbi Ḥuẓpit the interpreter: Send the people home. They said to Rebbi Zenon the ḥazan: Start! He said: Start! All the people stood up and said to him (Nahum 3:19): “Certainly, on whom did your evil not pass always?” They went and appointed Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah to the Yeshivah when he was 16 years old; his head became all white. Rebbi Aqiba sat and was sad; he said, not that he is a greater Torah scholar than I am, but he comes from a greater family than I do; hail to the man whose forefathers created merit for him, hail to the man who has a peg to hang on to. What was Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s peg? He was the tenth generation after Ezra. How many seats were there? Rebbi Jacob ben Sisi said: Eighty seats were there of accomplished scholars, not to count those standing behind the railing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said 300 were there, not to count those standing behind the railing. As we have stated there (Mishnah Zebaḥim 1:3) “On the day Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed to the Academy.” There (Mishnah Ketubot 4:6) we have stated: “This inference did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah present before the sages at the vineyard of Jabneh.” Was there a vineyard? It means that the scholars sat there in rows like vines in a vineyard. Rabban Gamliel went immediately to pacify each one in his house. He came to Rebbi Joshua and found him occupied with the making of needles. He asked him: This is how you earn your living? He answered him: Until now you did not know? Woe to the generation whose caretaker you are! He said to him: I humble myself before you. They sent a washerman to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, but some say that it was Rebbi Aqiba. He told him: The sprinkler, son of a sprinkler, should sprinkle. Should anyone who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to the sprinkler: your water is water from a cave and your ashes are ashes from a fireplace? He said to him: You made your peace with him! I and you shall go in the morning to Rabban Gamliel’s door. Nevertheless they did not remove him from his dignity but made him head of the court.

Rebbi Levi said, corresponding to the 18 Divine Names written in (Ps. 29) “Give to the Eternal, o sons of the mighty.” Rebbi Ḥuna said: If it were said that they are 17, tell him the one against sectarians the Sages fixed already at Jabneh. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose objected before Rebbi Yose, but is it not written (Ps. 29:3) “the God of Glory thundered”? He said to him: Has it not been stated: He takes together the one against sectarians and sinners in “He Who subdues offenders”, the one for elders and proselytes in “Assurance to the righteous”, and the one for David in “He Who builds Jerusalem.” Then you have enough to have a Divine name for each one of them.

Some Tannaïm have stated: One should first pray and then ask for one’s personal needs. Some Tannaïm have stated: One should first ask for one’s personal needs and then pray. He who says, one should first pray and then ask for one’s personal needs (Ps. 102:1) “Prayer of the deprived one who wraps himself up” and afterwards “and before the Eternal he pours out his speech.” But he who says, one should first ask for one’s personal needs and then pray, (1Kings 8:28) “To listen to lamentation” and after that “and to prayer.” The opinion of the sages: Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥuna, the private person asks for his personal needs in “He Who hears prayer”.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, Musaph prayer is said only in an organized community, but the Sages say, with and without an organized community. Rebbi Yehudah says in his name, at any place where there is an organized community a private person is free from reciting Musaph prayers.

There we have stated: Rabban Gamliel says, the reader frees the public from their obligation. The older Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel for the prayer accompanying the blowing of the Shofar. Rebbi Zeïra and Rav Ḥisda were sitting there for the blowing of the Shofar. After they finished the prayer, Rav Ḥisda got up and prayed. Rebbi Zeïra said to him: Did we not pray just now? He said to him, I prayed and I am repeating the prayer, because Westerners came down and said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel for the prayer accompanying the blowing of the Shofar, but I was inattentive. If I had been attentive, I would have fulfilled my duty. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is fine. All Tannaïm state it in the name of Rabban Gamliel, Rebbi Hoshaia states it in the name of the Sages. Rebbi Ada from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: This is only if he attended from the start. Rebbi Tanḥum said, the Mishnah expresses this: The order of benediction, one says “Forefathers”, “Greatness”, and “Sanctification of the Name”.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name if Rebbi Ḥanina: When someone stood [praying] in the rainy season and mentioned dew one does not make him repeat. In the season of dew and he mentioned rain one makes him repeat. But is it not stated: The sages did not oblige one to mention dew and winds but if he wants to mention them, he may mention? One cannot compare one who takes it easy to one who does not pray and does not take it easy. “When he stood in the rainy season and mentioned dew one does not make him repeat.” But is it not stated: If he did not ask for it in the benediction “for years”, or he did not mention the power of rains in “resurrection of the dead”, one makes him repeat? That is about one who mentioned neither dew nor rain.

“And Havdalah in ‘He Who by His grace grants knowledge’ ”. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yoḥanan: Something that one does all the time, and the Sages differ about it? He said to him: Since its main place is over a cup they forgot it in prayer. His statement means that its main place is over a cup. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of the old Rebbi Isaac: If he said it over a cup he must repeat it in prayer; it was in order to let children participate. His statement means that its main place is in prayer. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Yehudah in the name of Samuel: If he said it over a cup he must repeat it in prayer, if he said it in prayer he must repeat it over a cup. His statement means that its main place is here as well as there.

“And Havdalah in “He Who in His grace grants knowledge”, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Aqibah said: one says it as separate fourth benediction” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: He says it as fourth benediction. Rebbi Yudan says, the text of the benediction and after that he says Havdalah. His version agrees with Rebbi, since Rebbi said: I wonder why they eliminated “He Who in His grace grants knowledge” on Sabbath; if there is no knowledge, where is prayer? And here, if there is no knowledge, where is Havdalah? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, he says Havdalah and afterwards adds the text of the benediction.

Rebbi Aḥa and Rebbi Judah ben Pazy were sitting in a synagogue. One came and stood before the arc and forgot one benediction. They went and asked Rebbi Simon. Rebbi Simon said to them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One does not remove an emissary of the congregation who forgot two or three benedictions. They found a formulation that made a difference: One does not remove him for anything except if he did not say “He Who revives the dead”, “He Who subdues evildoers”, “He Who builds Jerusalem;” I say that he is a sectarian. Samuel Minor stood before the ark and forgot “He Who subdues evildoers.” At the end he started looking at them. They said to him, the Sages did not take you as a yardstick.

“Wine in its natural state, one says for it ‘Creator of the fruit of the tree’ and one may not use it to wash his hands; when it is mixed, one says for it ‘Creator of the fruit of the vine’ and one may use it to wash his hands; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, both pure and mixed one says over it ‘Creator of the fruit of the vine’ and one may use it to wash his hands.” Rebbi Abba said, it is not forbidden because of wasting food.

The statement of Rebbi Simeon the pious turns out like that of Rebbi and both of them like Rabban Gamliel, as it was stated: “The following is the principle: Rebbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabban Gamliel that on everything that is of the Seven Kinds but is not flour, or flour but not baked as bread, Rabban Gamliel says that he recites afterwards three benedictions; but the Sages say, one benediction. On everything that is neither from the Seven Kinds nor a kind of flour, Rabban Gamliel says he recites benedictions before and after, but the sages say before, but not after.”

The statement of Rebbi Simeon the pious turns out like that of Rebbi and both of them like Rabban Gamliel, as it was stated: “The following is the principle: Rebbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabban Gamliel that on everything that is of the Seven Kinds but is not flour, or flour but not baked as bread, Rabban Gamliel says that he recites afterwards three benedictions; but the Sages say, one benediction. On everything that is neither from the Seven Kinds nor a kind of flour, Rabban Gamliel says he recites benedictions before and after, but the sages say before, but not after.”

It has been stated: Rebbi Yose says, anyone who changes the formula established by the Sages did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Yehudah says, everything that has been changed from the way it was created but one did not change its benediction, he did not fulfill his duty. Rebbi Meïr says, even if he says: “Praised be He Who created this property, how beautiful it is,” he has fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel: practice follows Rebbi Meïr. The words of Rav also say so. A Persian came before Rav: “Since I am eating my piece of bread, but I do not know how to recite the benediction over it, I use to say: ‘Praise to Him Who created this piece of bread,’ did I fulfill my duty?” He said to him: yes.

MISHNAH: If there were many kinds before him, Rebbi Yehudah said, if among them is one of the Seven Kinds that is the one over which he recites the benediction. But the Sages say, on any one that he wishes.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: May he who ate vegetable recite Grace? Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! It has been stated: 300 nezirim came in the days of Simeon ben Shetaḥ. For 150 of them he found an opening, for 150 of them he did not find an opening. He came to king Yannai and said to him: There are here 300 nezirim who need 900 sacrifices. You should give half of them from your side, I shall give half from my side. The king sent him 450 animals. An informer went around and said that the other one had not given anything from his own money. King Yannai heard about it and got angry. Simeon ben Shetaḥ feared and fled. After some time, important people from the Persian empire came to king Yannai. At the meal, they said to him: We remember that there was here an old man who gave us a rabbinic discourse. He told them what had happened. They said to him, send and bring him! He sent and gave him his word; he came and sat between king and queen. He said to him, why did you trick me? He said, I did not trick you; you with your money and I with my learning, as it is written (Eccl. 7:12) “In the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money.” He said to him, why did you disappear? He said to him, I heard that my lord was angry with me and I wanted to fulfill the verse (Is. 26:20) “Hide a little bit until the rage passes;” he used about himself (Eccl. 7:12): “Knowledge is an advantage, wisdom lets its possessor live.” He said to him, why did you sit between king and queen? He said to him, it is written in the book of Ben Sirach: “Esteem it and it will raise you and set you between princes.” He said, bring him a cup that he may recite Grace. He took the cup and said: “Let us give praise for the food that Yannai and his company ate.” He said to him, are you still obstinate as ever? He said to him, what should I say, “for the food that we did not eat?” He said, bring him something that he may eat. They brought, he ate and recited: “For the food that we ate.” Rebbi Yoḥanan said, his colleagues disagree with Simeon ben Shetaḥ. Rebbi Jeremiah said, about the first action; Rebbi Abba said, about the second action. Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! There he wondered about it and here it is obvious for him! He wondered following the Sages; it is obvious for him following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. We have stated about this: If one was lying on a couch and ate with them, even if he did not eat grain the volume of an olive one ‘invites’ with him, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One never ‘invites’ anyone unless he had eaten grain the volume of an olive. But did we not formulate, “two bread and one vegetable, then one ‘invites’?” This baraita follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: May he who ate vegetable recite Grace? Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! It has been stated: 300 nezirim came in the days of Simeon ben Shetaḥ. For 150 of them he found an opening, for 150 of them he did not find an opening. He came to king Yannai and said to him: There are here 300 nezirim who need 900 sacrifices. You should give half of them from your side, I shall give half from my side. The king sent him 450 animals. An informer went around and said that the other one had not given anything from his own money. King Yannai heard about it and got angry. Simeon ben Shetaḥ feared and fled. After some time, important people from the Persian empire came to king Yannai. At the meal, they said to him: We remember that there was here an old man who gave us a rabbinic discourse. He told them what had happened. They said to him, send and bring him! He sent and gave him his word; he came and sat between king and queen. He said to him, why did you trick me? He said, I did not trick you; you with your money and I with my learning, as it is written (Eccl. 7:12) “In the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money.” He said to him, why did you disappear? He said to him, I heard that my lord was angry with me and I wanted to fulfill the verse (Is. 26:20) “Hide a little bit until the rage passes;” he used about himself (Eccl. 7:12): “Knowledge is an advantage, wisdom lets its possessor live.” He said to him, why did you sit between king and queen? He said to him, it is written in the book of Ben Sirach: “Esteem it and it will raise you and set you between princes.” He said, bring him a cup that he may recite Grace. He took the cup and said: “Let us give praise for the food that Yannai and his company ate.” He said to him, are you still obstinate as ever? He said to him, what should I say, “for the food that we did not eat?” He said, bring him something that he may eat. They brought, he ate and recited: “For the food that we ate.” Rebbi Yoḥanan said, his colleagues disagree with Simeon ben Shetaḥ. Rebbi Jeremiah said, about the first action; Rebbi Abba said, about the second action. Rebbi Jeremiah seems to contradict himself! There he wondered about it and here it is obvious for him! He wondered following the Sages; it is obvious for him following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. We have stated about this: If one was lying on a couch and ate with them, even if he did not eat grain the volume of an olive one ‘invites’ with him, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One never ‘invites’ anyone unless he had eaten grain the volume of an olive. But did we not formulate, “two bread and one vegetable, then one ‘invites’?” This baraita follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

“If there are a hundred” etc. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jose the Galilean, but the Sages say “there is no difference between ten and ten myriads”. Rava said, practice follows him who states that there is no difference between ten and ten myriads.

How do the Sages use the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? “In assemblies”, in each separate congregation. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written במקהלת.

MISHNAH: Two groups that ate in one house, if some of one group saw some of the other group they join in “invitation”; otherwise, each group recites the “invitation” for itself. One does not recite a benediction over wine unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction.

“One does not recite a benediction over wine unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer that one has to add a small amount of water into the cup used for Grace. The rabbis do so for the Qiddush cup. The statement of Rebbi Yose disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah tasted it and restored it. If you imply that it was mixed, did we not formulate: He who drinks mixed drinks that were standing through the night, his blood is on his head. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, that is only if it was standing in metal vessels.

“One does not recite a benediction over wine unless he added water; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, one may recite the benediction.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer that one has to add a small amount of water into the cup used for Grace. The rabbis do so for the Qiddush cup. The statement of Rebbi Yose disagrees with Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah tasted it and restored it. If you imply that it was mixed, did we not formulate: He who drinks mixed drinks that were standing through the night, his blood is on his head. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, that is only if it was standing in metal vessels.