sages

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, as we have stated there: “If somebody took ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba says it is ḥallah, but the Sages say it is no ḥallah.” Rebbi Aqiba said that only for the past, maybe for the start? Here we deal with the start. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they followed the manner of Rebbi Aqiba.

Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that you go after the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rebbi Aqiba said the additional growth is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth. How is that? Explain it either for Rebbi Aqiba in a disagreement, or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.” But is here not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or heave between them do not combine. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah. If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another, Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah. If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.

MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or heave between them do not combine. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah. If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another, Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah. If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.

MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or heave between them do not combine. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah. If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another, Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah. If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.

They wanted to say what Rebbi Aqiba said, ḥallah may be taken from a qab from practice, not as a biblical standard. Since we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate,” this implies that it is by biblical standards.

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah. The Land of Israel up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure, the one for the Cohen has no measure. From Euphrates or Amanus inside, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion. But it is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux, and to women during menstruation or after childbirth. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem-dedications, firstlings, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son, the redemption value of a firstling donkey, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits. Heave vetch Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

“He who buys from a baker in Syria has to separate ḥallah as demay, the words of Rabban Gamliel, but the Sages say he does not have to separate ḥallah as demay.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Rabban Gamliel said it right, what is the reason of the Sages? He said to him, just as Israel are not suspected in matters of heave in the Land, so they are not suspected in matters of ḥallah in Syria.

“He who buys from a baker in Syria has to separate ḥallah as demay, the words of Rabban Gamliel, but the Sages say he does not have to separate ḥallah as demay.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Rabban Gamliel said it right, what is the reason of the Sages? He said to him, just as Israel are not suspected in matters of heave in the Land, so they are not suspected in matters of ḥallah in Syria.

If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated?

“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings” said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ‘orlah. It was also stated thus: (Num. 15:18) “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same, “breaking” and “smashing” is the same, “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same, and here he takes note of a change in expression!

Who stated “heave of the tithe of demay”? Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥanina said, the following which we have stated there: “A woman who sees a stain [on her clothes] is out of order and must consider the possibility of flux, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say that stains do not imply flux.”

“ ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200.” It is written “the fulness, the fulness.” Just as “the fulness” which has been said there is lifted, so “the fulness” here is lifted. Then, as there by 100, so here by 100. Since the verse doubled its prohibition, the Sages changed its obligation. So for vineyard kilaim, what about ‘orlah? Just as that is forbidden for all use, so this is forbidden for all use; just as that is lifted, so this is lifted.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

MISHNAH: If vessels were oiled first with impure oil and then with pure, or first with pure and then with impure, Rebbi Eliezer says I am going after the first, but the Sages say after the last.

The rabbis of Caesarea said, in one respect he follows his father’s argument, in one the argument of the Sages. His father’s argument, that anything which spoils the taste is permitted. The argument of the Sages, that [different] names combine.

The rabbis of Caesarea said, in one respect he follows his father’s argument, in one the argument of the Sages. His father’s argument, that anything which spoils the taste is permitted. The argument of the Sages, that [different] names combine.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits but the Sages forbid.”

MISHNAH: Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned. If it became mixed up with others, all should be burned, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages said, it should be lifted by one in 200.

MISHNAH: If somebody dyes [a thread] the length of a sîṭ with ‘orlah shells, uses it to weave cloth, and it is not known where it is, Rebbi Meїr says the cloth should be burned but the Sages say it may be lifted by one in 200. If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned; of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned. Of sanctified it sanctifies in the most minute amount.

HALAKHAH: Who stated “sîṭ”? Rebbi Meïr! But for the Sages, sîṭ or less than a sîṭ follow the same rules.

MISHNAH: If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard kilaim, they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rebbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rebbi Meïr said, anything counted sanctifies; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rebbi Aqiba says seven.

MISHNAH: If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of vineyard kilaim, they should be burned. If they were mixed with others, Rebbi Meïr said, all should be burned, but the Sages say, they may be lifted by one in 200, since Rebbi Meïr said, anything counted sanctifies; but the Sages say only six things sanctify; Rebbi Aqiba says seven.

“This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, we have stated: “One washes his hands for profane, tithe, and heave; but for sacrifices one immerses.” There, you say that tithe does not need washing and here you say, tithe needs washing! Those who say, tithe needs washing, the rabbis; he who says, tithe does not need washing, Rebbi Meїr. There, we have stated: “Anything needing immersion in water by rabbinic decree makes sacrifices impure and heave unusable but is permitted for profane food and tithe. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” Is that not explained by what Rebbi Samuel says in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, what means the Sages forbid for tithe? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. What is that? May you say tithe needs washing, if he wants to eat; may you say tithe does not need washing, if he wants to touch? No, wanting to touch is the same as wanting to eat. So it must be washing as discipline. But we have stated: “heave”! Is there washing as discipline for heave? But it is about profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices. Is profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices not profane? Explain it either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meїr: Hands are [impure] in the first degree for profane food, in the second for heave. Or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog as it was stated there: “Profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices is profane. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog says it is like heave, it may be impure in two degrees and invalidates a third.”

“This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, we have stated: “One washes his hands for profane, tithe, and heave; but for sacrifices one immerses.” There, you say that tithe does not need washing and here you say, tithe needs washing! Those who say, tithe needs washing, the rabbis; he who says, tithe does not need washing, Rebbi Meїr. There, we have stated: “Anything needing immersion in water by rabbinic decree makes sacrifices impure and heave unusable but is permitted for profane food and tithe. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” Is that not explained by what Rebbi Samuel says in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, what means the Sages forbid for tithe? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. What is that? May you say tithe needs washing, if he wants to eat; may you say tithe does not need washing, if he wants to touch? No, wanting to touch is the same as wanting to eat. So it must be washing as discipline. But we have stated: “heave”! Is there washing as discipline for heave? But it is about profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices. Is profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices not profane? Explain it either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meїr: Hands are [impure] in the first degree for profane food, in the second for heave. Or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog as it was stated there: “Profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices is profane. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog says it is like heave, it may be impure in two degrees and invalidates a third.”

HALAKHAH: What is a koy? Rebbi Eleazar said, [the offspring of] a he-goat which mated with a hind or of a stag which mated with a she-goat. But the rabbis say it is a separate kind and the Sages could not determine its nature.

“It is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]. Rebbi Eleazar frees.” Since Rebbi Eleazar says that now he is in doubt, he says “free”. But the Sages, who teach that it is an original species, say “obligated.”

Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus and smaller people than he were ordained but he was not ordained. Simeon bar Abba was an expert in everything concerning pearls but he did not have a loaf to eat. Rebbi Joḥanan quoted about him (Eccl. 9:11): “Also bread is not for Sages.” He said, anybody who does not know the good works of Abraham may know them through the good works of this man’s ancestors. Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus when Rebbi Abbahu sent him a letter and enclosed some of his grey hair: “For these gray hairs’ sake, get up and go to the Land of Israel. Who would remove the earth from your eyes, Rebbi Joḥanan: Abbahu the shoe-clad was ordained, Simeon the toga-clad was not ordained!”

MISHNAH: When did they say that additions to First Fruits follow the rules of First Fruits? If they come from the Land. But if they do not come from the Land, they do not follow the rules of First Fruits. Why did they say, First Fruits are the Cohen's property? He may use them to buy slaves, real estate, and impure animals. A creditor can take them for his claim and a woman for her ketuba, like a Torah scroll. And Rebbi Jehudah says, one gives them only to a fellow for goodwill, but the Sages say one gives them to the people of the watch and they distribute them among themselves like Temple-hallowed food.

HALAKHAH: “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan understood it from the following: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

HALAKHAH: “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan understood it from the following: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable. It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable. It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for carrying out one is not liable. It is everybody’s opinion that walking counts as if one was putting down. Where do they disagree? If one is throwing, for Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai considers the air space over karmelit like its essence but the Sages consider the air space over karmelit not like its essence.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for carrying out one is not liable. It is everybody’s opinion that walking counts as if one was putting down. Where do they disagree? If one is throwing, for Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai considers the air space over karmelit like its essence but the Sages consider the air space over karmelit not like its essence.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A tailor should not leave with his needle close to sundown lest he forget and leave,” etc. It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If one of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.”The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle with ear she is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

It was stated, lest he forget and turn. “Rebbi Ismael said, I will read but not turn. He forgot and almost turned. He said, how great are the words of the Sages who said, lest he forget and turn. Rebbi Nathan says, he actually turned and wrote on his writing tablet, Ismael ben Elisha turned the light on the Sabbath. When the Temple will be rebuilt he is liable for a purification sacrifice.”

“Uncovering is not a danger for oil and vinegar, brine, and muries, and honey, but Rebbi Simeon forbids. The Sages agree with Rebbi Simeon when it was seen pecking.” It was stated thus: “If a watermelon was pecked and ten people ate from it or wine was uncovered and ten people drank from it, it is forbidden to eat or drink after them; I say that there was sinking poison.”

MISHNAH: With what may one kindle and with what may one not kindle? One kindles neither with bast, nor with raw flax, nor with silk noil, nor with tow-cotton, nor with desert wick, nor with green from the surface of water; not with pitch, nor with wax, nor with qīq oil, nor with oil to be burned, nor with fat tail, nor with fat. Naḥum the Mede says one may kindle with cooked fat, but the Sages say whether cooked or uncooked one does not kindle with it.

MISHNAH: One does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday. Rebbi Ismael says, one does not kindle with ˋiṭran because of the honor of the Sabbath. But the Sages permit all kinds of oil, sesame oil, nut oil, radish oil, fish oil, colocynth oil, ˋiṭran, and naphtha. Rebbi Tarphon says, one kindles only with olive oil.

“But the Sages permit all kinds of oil.” (State:) colocynth oil.

MISHNAH: One may not put an egg next to the hot water container to make it soft boiled and he may not break it on tissue, but Rebbi Yose permits. One should not bury it in dust of roads that it should be roasted. What the people of Tiberias did was to divert a jet of cold water into a canal of hot water. The Sages told them if this is on a Sabbath this is like hot water which was heated on the Sabbath; it is forbidden for washing and drinking. But if it is on a holiday it is like water heated on the holiday; it is forbidden for washing but permitted for drinking. From a cleaned-out cooking vessel one drinks on the Sabbath; from an Antiochean vessel one does not drink even if it is cleaned out.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Since you are saying, it is permitted to move it, similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it presses.”

There, we have stated: “If somebody bathes in a cave or in the waters of Tiberias he may dry himself even with ten linen towels but may not bring them in his hand.” Samuel said, what should an opinionated person do who never studied and never served? This Mishnah was before they permitted to bring linen towels. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Rebbi permitted linen towels. It was stated: One takes a shower neither with hot water nor with cold water. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this baraita was before the Sages permitted the hot springs of Tiberias, as it was stated: One who bathes in the hot springs of Tiberias may sprinkle on himself, but others may not sprinkle on him. Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia said, he may not even sprinkle on himself since he increases vapor and sweeps the floor.

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rebbi Simeon [ben Menassia] permits.” Rav comes following Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rebbi Joḥanan following Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages forbid.” Rebbi Meïr says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Jehudah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

Rebbi Abba bat Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is forbidden to move a tarkos. Rebbi Immi instructed: it is permitted. Rebbi Jeremiah saw them moving it at the great assembly and did not object to them. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, up to three it is a chair, more than this a ladder. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who permits follows Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Since you are saying, it is permitted to move it, similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any vessel except a carriage because it presses.”

MISHNAH: One may store away in raw hides, which one may move, and in wool flakes, which one may not move. What does one do? He shakes the cover and they fall off. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, a box he tilts on its side and takes out, lest he take it out and be unable to return it. But the Sages say, he takes and returns.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rav Hoshaia asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations? Rebbi Jonah (Ben Ṣeruya) [from Bostra] said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan but a dry one Egyptian, that means a proselyte from Libya has to wait three generations; it means that Libyan is identical with Egyptian. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are one.

MISHNAH: A donkey may not go out with its saddle cloth if it is not bound to it, nor with a bell even if it is plugged, nor with a ladder on its neck, nor with a strip on its foot. Chicken may no go out with threads or strips on their feet. Rams may not go out with a carriage under their tails nor female sheep with yaḥnun, nor a calf with gimun, nor a cow with hedgehog hide, nor with a strip between her horns. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s cow went out with a strip between her horns against the will of the Sages.

“Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s cow went out with a strip between her horns against the will of the Sages.” Rebbi Abba: Both (and Rebbi) [Rav and] Samuel are saying, the words of the Sages are that even pulling her with them is forbidden. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: If its horns were drilling it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Abba and he said, we only stated: “the female camel with a nose ring.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: A badly behaved ox goes out with his bridle; our teachers in the Diaspora do this. Rebbi Illa, Rav Jehudah in the name of [Rebbi] Simeon ben [Rebbi] Ḥiyya: A dog goes out with his muzzle. If to (expect) [punish] him it is forbidden, if so he should not eat his bridle it is permitted.

“Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s cow went out with a strip between her horns against the will of the Sages.” Rebbi Abba: Both (and Rebbi) [Rav and] Samuel are saying, the words of the Sages are that even pulling her with them is forbidden. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: If its horns were drilling it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Abba and he said, we only stated: “the female camel with a nose ring.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: A badly behaved ox goes out with his bridle; our teachers in the Diaspora do this. Rebbi Illa, Rav Jehudah in the name of [Rebbi] Simeon ben [Rebbi] Ḥiyya: A dog goes out with his muzzle. If to (expect) [punish] him it is forbidden, if so he should not eat his bridle it is permitted.

Ganiva said, he was continuing teaching as ruling. [Rebbi Jonah from Bostra asked, if he was continuing teaching as ruling,] is that what we were stating: “against the will of the Sages”? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi (Rav) [following Bar] Delaya stated, they told him, either remove yourself from between us or remove the strip from between its horns. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he was shielding himself against them. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it went out once and his teeth became black from the fasts [and mortification]. Rebbi Idi from (his staff) [Ḥotra] said, it was his wife. And from where that his wife is called “calf”? “Had you not ploughed with my calf you would not have solved my riddle.” There, they are saying, it was his neighbor. Is anybody punished for his neighbor’s behavior? Rebbi Qiris from (Didyma) [Irma]: To teach you that if anybody has the possibility to protest and he does not protest, the damage is attached to him.

One may not look into a mirror on the Sabbath. If it was fixed on a wall, Rebbi permits and the Sages prohibit. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: The reason of him who forbids that occasionally she will see a white hair and tear it out which brings her to the obligation of a purification sacrifice. But for a man it is forbidden also on weekdays because it is not honorable. Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter because it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said, because he wants to teach his daughters he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abbahu heard this and said, it should come over me if I did not hear this from Rebbi Joḥanan.

“Nor with a city of gold.” Rav Jehudah said, for example a Jerusalem of gold The rabbis of Caesarea said, פרוש טוק טקלין. It happened that Rebbi Aqiba made a city of gold for his wife. Rabban Gamliel’s wife saw her and became jealous. She came and mentioned it before her husband. He told her, if you had done for me what she did for him, for she sold the braids of her head, gave him, and he studied Torah. There, we have stated: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified for testimony.” It was stated, Rebbi Meïr declares liable. Between Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and the Sages declare not liable. Between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Eliezer permits and the Sages prohibit. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer it is difficult, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and Rebbi Eliezer permits.

“Nor with a city of gold.” Rav Jehudah said, for example a Jerusalem of gold The rabbis of Caesarea said, פרוש טוק טקלין. It happened that Rebbi Aqiba made a city of gold for his wife. Rabban Gamliel’s wife saw her and became jealous. She came and mentioned it before her husband. He told her, if you had done for me what she did for him, for she sold the braids of her head, gave him, and he studied Torah. There, we have stated: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified for testimony.” It was stated, Rebbi Meïr declares liable. Between Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and the Sages declare not liable. Between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Eliezer permits and the Sages prohibit. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer it is difficult, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and Rebbi Eliezer permits.

MISHNAH: A woman may not go out with a needle that has an ear, nor with a signet ring, nor with a snail-shaped headdress, nor with a perfume bouquet, nor with a perfume flask; if she went out she is liable for a purification offering, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages declare her not liable for a perfume bouquet or a perfume flask.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If any of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.” The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle without ear one is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If any of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.” The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle without ear one is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rebbi Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

MISHNAH: A man may go out neither with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a shield, nor with a bludgeon, nor with a spear, and if he went out he is liable for a purification offering. Rebbi Eliezer says, these are adornments for him, but the Sages say, they only are shameful for him, as it is said, they will forge their swords into ploughs and their lances into vintner’s knives. A garter is pure and one may go out with in on the Sabbath. Ropes are impure and one may not go out with them on the Sabbath.

MISHNAH: A woman may go out with hair threads, whether her own or another woman’s or an animal’s, with a frontlet with a head-dress hanging down the cheeks if they are sewn; with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard with cotton wool in her ear, or cotton wool in her shoes, or cotton wool which she prepared for her period. With pepper or a grain of salt or any other thing she may put into her mouth on condition that she not start on the Sabbath, and if it fell out she may not return it. A replacement tooth and a gilt tooth Rebbi permits but the Sages prohibit.

Rebbi Abbahu said, anything which sits in the hair is called “wig.” The younger Rebbi Yannai had cotton wool in his ear which fell out. He wanted to return it on the Sabbath. His companions rebuked him; was it because of jewelry? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that oil is the healing agent, whereas the Sages were of the opinion that the cotton wool was the healing agent? But did not (Rav) [Rebbi] Jehudah say in the name of Rav Zeˋira, a person with earache puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that practice follows Rebbi Yose whereas his companions were of the opinion that practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? Buy did not Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose? Was Rebbi Yannai of the opinion that they did not consider humans like soil whereas his companions were of the opinion that they made humans like soil? But did not Rebbi Zeˋira say that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi made himself a handle for the cotton wool in his ear? Could they hold that a human is treated like soil? Is this so? But it must be the following: Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he would not forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain and his companions were of the opinion that one would forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

MISHNAH: One goes out with a tetradrachma on a arthritic foot. Girls go out with threads and even chips in their ears. Arab women go out veiled and Median women pinned, and also everybody, but the Sages spoke about what is.

MISHNAH: Boys go out with knots and princes with bells, and so may everybody, but the Sages spoke about what is. One may go out with a locust’s egg and a fox’s tooth and a nail of a crucified person because of healing, the words of Rebbi Yose. But Rebbi Meїr forbids on weekdays because of ways of the Emorite.

“Who rubs it clean.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old, it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles, who makes cheese, who makes butter, who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who sweeps, who sprinkles, is liable because of threshing. He who makes cheese, who makes butter, is liable because of kneading. He who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable because of harvesting. He who squeezes budding olives is liable because of harvesting. Who needs this? Rebbi Eliezer.

“Who rubs it clean.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old, it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles, who makes cheese, who makes butter, who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who sweeps, who sprinkles, is liable because of threshing. He who makes cheese, who makes butter, is liable because of kneading. He who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable because of harvesting. He who squeezes budding olives is liable because of harvesting. Who needs this? Rebbi Eliezer.

“And who tears down,” but only for a need. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who blows a glass vessel is liable because of building. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There are things which are close but far away; and there are things which are far away but close. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form, all are because of building. He who selects, who filters, and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable. And why was handing over not stated with them? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: In addition, there is handing over. And why was it not stated with them? All categories of work involve one, and this one two. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.

“Rebbi Simeon says, all are by a quartarius.” The Sages answer Rebbi Simeon: It is impossible to say honey by a quartarius, vinegar by a quartarius. But he answered them, just as you hold that all solid food combines for the volume of a dried date, so we hold that all drinks combine for a quartarius.

MISHNAH: Earth for a seal of merchandise, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say, for seals of letters. Manure and sand to fertilize one cabbage stalk, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say, to fertilize a stalk of leek. Coarse sand to add to a handful of lime, reed to make writing pen. If it was wide or splintered, to cook a most easily cooked egg, scrambled in a pan.

MISHNAH: Earth for a seal of merchandise, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say, for seals of letters. Manure and sand to fertilize one cabbage stalk, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages say, to fertilize a stalk of leek. Coarse sand to add to a handful of lime, reed to make writing pen. If it was wide or splintered, to cook a most easily cooked egg, scrambled in a pan.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

There, we have stated: “One who loses semen on the third day is pure, the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Ismael says, sometimes they are four terms, sometimes they are five, sometimes they are six. Rebbi Aqiba says, always they are five. If part of the first term had elapsed, one completes it by the sixth term.” Therefore Rebbi Ismael makes the day one term and the night one term; Rebbi Aqiba makes the day one term and the night one term. In what do they differ? They differ in complete terms. Rebbi Ismael treats part of a term like the whole, but Rebbi Aqiba does not treat part of a term like the whole. It was stated so about Rebbi Aqiba: “Therefore if part of the first term had elapsed, one completes it by the sixth term”. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, day and night each are a term, and part of a term is like the whole. It was stated so about Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Sometimes after slightly more than a day she is pure; sometimes after slightly less than two days she is impure. How does it happen that after slightly more than a day she is pure? She had intercourse Friday afternoon before sundown and lost Saturday night after nightfall; there is slightly more than a day she is pure. How does it happen that after slightly less than two days she is impure? She had intercourse Friday night after sundown and lost Sunday night before nightfall; there is slightly less than two days she is impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words of all of them, Israel received the Torah as immersed on the same day. That is, the women; but the men already were purified. What is the reason? Sanctify them today and tomorrow and let them wash their garments. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the word of the Sages is, up to three days; after that it decayed. This parallels what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This are the instructions for the sufferer from gonorrhea and from whom semen is ejaculated. Since the instructions of the sufferer from gonorrhea are based on three days, also the instructions for semen are up to three days.

MISHNAH: He who takes off his fingernails one with the other or with his teeth, and similarly his hair, or his mustache, or his beard, and similarly the woman who braids, or who puts on kohl, or puts on make-up, Rebbi Eliezer declares liable for a purification sacrifice but the Sages say because of Sabbath rest. One who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable, with no hole is not liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable in either case.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Where do they differ? If he himself took them but if another took them they are disgusting. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rav, he is never liable unless he take them with a grooming knife. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: The one who braids is liable because of building. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Banaya: At our place they call builder one who is plaiting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, would it not be reasonable that it should be because of weaving? The argument of Rebbi Zeˋira is inverted, for there said Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one who plaits three hairs of a human is liable because of weaving; Rebbi Zeˋira said, is it not spinning rather than weaving? And here he says so! There if they are few, here for many. That is what you say about a human, but for an animal it is pure, as it was stated: One who makes a belt under the heart, to beautify, or to fasten the bags, to hang it around an animal’s neck, is pure. That is, for simple ones. But if the are folded, whether for human or for animal they are impure. The one who applies kohl is liable because of writing; the one who puts on make-up is liable because of dyeing.

MISHNAH: If one throws from a private domain to the public domain or from the public domain to a private domain, he is liable. From a private domain to another private domain when a public domain is between them, Rebbi Aqiba declares him liable but the Sages declare him not liable.

MISHNAH: If he wrote with fluid of drinks, with fruit juice, with road dust, with scribe’s dust, or with anything which is not permanent, he is not liable. With the back of his hand, with his foot, with his mouth, with his elbow; if he wrote one letter adjacent to existing writing, wrote over existing writing, intended to write ח and wrote זז, one on the ground and one on a beam, on two walls of a house or two leaves of a wooden tablet if they cannot be read together, he is not liable. If he wrote one letter as abbreviation, Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra declares liable but the Sages declare not liable.

MISHNAH: One who wrote two letters in two periods of oblivion, one in the morning and one in the evening, Rabban Gamliel declares liable but the Sages declare not liable.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves three threads to start or one on the weave is liable. But the Sages say, whether at the beginning or at the end its measure is two threads.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable, but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. The principle: In every case where it still needs catching, he is not liable, if it does not need catching he is liable.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him in the name of Jesus ben Pandera, but Rebbi Ismael prevented him. He told him, I shall bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rebbi Ismael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, as it is written, he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake. But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World. What could he have said? Which a person should do and live by them.

Do they disagree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? Since it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meїr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.” This implies that they do not disagree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rebbi Abba said, the Mishnah is about a rope hanging down, a rope tied hanging down.

“Where does one save it to? To a side street which is a dead end.” Therefore not to one which is a thoroughfare. Everywhere you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down, but here you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down. But one who is throwing. Everywhere you are saying, one who throws is not liable, but here you are saying, one who throws is liable. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: we are dealing with the case that they did not make an eruv. Ben Bathyra is like Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “One may move things under bridges which are thoroughfares, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages prohibit.”

HALAKHAH: In the days of Rebbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rebbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rebbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state, in any case of danger to life one does not say that [the necessary work] be done by women or minors, but [it should be done] even by adults, even by Jewish persons. “It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Shiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due. Immediately there formed a cloud which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander 50 denarii.” The Sages said, there was no need for him to do that. A Nabatean was in the neighborhood of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; the Nabatean wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

Rebbi Abba (Rebbi Judah, Rebbi) Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Neḥemiah about the press, the plank, and the mace; the press with which he presses, the plank on which one beats them, the mace with which he smashes them. An implement dedicated to a forbidden use may be moved only for a need; one for permitted use both with and without a need.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if the window plug is connected and hanging one may plug with it, otherwise one may not plug with it. But the Sages say, in any case one may plug with it. All implement covers which have handles may be taken on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? Covers of the ground. But covers of implements in any case may be taken on the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, one hangs the yeast-sieve on a holiday and one uses one hanging on the Sabbath. But the Sages say, one may not hang a yeast-sieve on a holiday and may not use a hanging one on the Sabbath but one may use a hanging one on a holiday.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, one hangs the yeast-sieve,” etc. It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree that one sets up new tents on the Sabbath. Where do they disagree? About extending, for Rebbi Eliezer says one adds on a holiday but one does not add on a Sabbath, but the Sages say, one does not add on a holiday, and it is not necessary to say on a Sabbath.” Do we not deal here with an addition? Rebbi Abbin bar Cahana said, explain it about a new yeast-sieve which he turns into an implement. A fortiori.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, one hangs the yeast-sieve,” etc. It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree that one sets up new tents on the Sabbath. Where do they disagree? About extending, for Rebbi Eliezer says one adds on a holiday but one does not add on a Sabbath, but the Sages say, one does not add on a holiday, and it is not necessary to say on a Sabbath.” Do we not deal here with an addition? Rebbi Abbin bar Cahana said, explain it about a new yeast-sieve which he turns into an implement. A fortiori.

MISHNAH: One cleans up after an animal to be fattened, and one removes it to the sides for one grazing, the words of Rebbi Dosa, but the Sages forbid. One may take from before one animal and put it before another one on the Sabbath.

But was it not stated, “the Sages agree with Rebbi Meїr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary [to mention] on a holiday.”. This implies that they treated the clothes press as if it were in the ground. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so, “a washer’s one may not be touched.”

MISHNAH: The House of Hillel say, one removes from the table bones and shells, but the House of Shammai say, one removes the entire table and shakes it. One removes from the table crumbs less than olive size, hair of chick-peas and lentils, since it is animal feed. One cleans with a sponge if it has a leather handle; otherwise one does not clean with it. The Sages say in any case it may be taken on the Sabbath and is impervious to impurity.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, 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.” As you are saying there, one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the roof as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they do not compare. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed stakes are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine or squash.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shadow it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav Oshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

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.