sancta

“Nor with oil to be burned.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is forbidden to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But have we not stated: “One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs.” Rebbi Yose said, it is written about the Sabbath, do not do any work; it is done automatically. But here the Torah said that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, not to speak of the Sabbath. What did you see that you said so? You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire. After two mornings, one the morning of the 15 and the other the morning of the 16. And it is written, what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day.

“Nor with oil to be burned.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is forbidden to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But have we not stated: “One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs.” Rebbi Yose said, it is written about the Sabbath, do not do any work; it is done automatically. But here the Torah said that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, not to speak of the Sabbath. What did you see that you said so? You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire. After two mornings, one the morning of the 15 and the other the morning of the 16. And it is written, what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day.

May one light a fire under a pyre of leavened material? For him who infers it from remainder, it is forbidden. But for him who does not infer it from remainder, it is permitted. Rav Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥisda: this implies that it is permitted to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But did we not state, “one does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” because of a holiday which falls on Friday. But then one should not light oil to be burned in the night since one does not burn sancta in the night! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they followed the argument of Rebbi Ismael. Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night. Where do you have oil to be burned whose time has passed? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: Since it became impure it is as if its time had passed.

May one light a fire under a pyre of leavened material? For him who infers it from remainder, it is forbidden. But for him who does not infer it from remainder, it is permitted. Rav Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥisda: this implies that it is permitted to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But did we not state, “one does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” because of a holiday which falls on Friday. But then one should not light oil to be burned in the night since one does not burn sancta in the night! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they followed the argument of Rebbi Ismael. Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night. Where do you have oil to be burned whose time has passed? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: Since it became impure it is as if its time had passed.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “Three things a person has to say in his house,” etc. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the practices of sancta, and purifying waters, and preparations for impurity, are of the most important practices and all three have been handed over to the vulgar. The practices of sancta, as we have stated: “If he said, I separated into it a quartarius of sanctum, he must be believed.” Purifying waters, as we have stated: “Everybody is trustworthy about purifying water.” Preparations for impurity, as we have stated: “About all these the vulgar is trustworthy to say that they are pure.”It should have been necessary: Kindle the light, did you give tithe, did you make an eruv, kindle? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, since you are strict with him for the easier rules he will be strict with himself with the weighty one. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac commanded his house, did you make an eruv, did you kindle the light? Why did he not say, did you give tithe? Because all he ate, he ate from the market.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “Three things a person has to say in his house,” etc. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the practices of sancta, and purifying waters, and preparations for impurity, are of the most important practices and all three have been handed over to the vulgar. The practices of sancta, as we have stated: “If he said, I separated into it a quartarius of sanctum, he must be believed.” Purifying waters, as we have stated: “Everybody is trustworthy about purifying water.” Preparations for impurity, as we have stated: “About all these the vulgar is trustworthy to say that they are pure.”It should have been necessary: Kindle the light, did you give tithe, did you make an eruv, kindle? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, since you are strict with him for the easier rules he will be strict with himself with the weighty one. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac commanded his house, did you make an eruv, did you kindle the light? Why did he not say, did you give tithe? Because all he ate, he ate from the market.

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar, this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says, on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says, as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship. (He retorted,) them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not) separate. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct.

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar, this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says, on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says, as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship. (He retorted,) them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not) separate. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near, equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near, equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near, equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near, equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

MISHNAH: One removes even four or five baskets of straw or of grain because of guests or because of obstruction of the House of Study, but not the storehouse. One removes pure heave, and demay, and First Tithe of which its heave was taken, and Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and dry lupines because it is food of the poor; but not ṭevel, nor First Tithe whose heave was not taken, nor Second Tithe and sancta which were not redeemed, nor serpentary, nor mustard seed. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits serpentary because it is food of ravens.

MISHNAH: One removes even four or five baskets of straw or of grain because of guests or because of obstruction of the House of Study, but not the storehouse. One removes pure heave, and demay, and First Tithe of which its heave was taken, and Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and dry lupines because it is food of the poor; but not ṭevel, nor First Tithe whose heave was not taken, nor Second Tithe and sancta which were not redeemed, nor serpentary, nor mustard seed. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits serpentary because it is food of ravens.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified.” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abbin said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14 which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel.

MISHNAH: A person counts his guests and his desserts orally but not from a written list. A person may make a lottery with his children and his family on the table on condition that he not make portions large or small, because of gambling. One casts lots on sancta on the holiday but not on portions.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a crawling animal was found in the Temple,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said to him, did you not prolong the impurity? He answered him, did you not increase impurity? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by him than a prohibition which will come before him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there, “how does one separate ḥallah in impurity on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer says, one should not declare its name until after it was baked. Ben Bathyra says, he should put it into cold water.” Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not like one who burns sancta on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer told him, it is burned automatically. Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not transgressing it should not be seen, and it should not be found? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by you than a prohibition which will come before you.

The colleagues said, in the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah if he dedicated it it is dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is no heave. If he dedicated it it is dedicated, dedication of money’s worth. If he designated it as heave it is no heave, since heave was given only to be consumed. Rebbi Yose told them, the opposite is reasonable. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is heave. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated, since one does not redeem sancta to feed to the dogs. If he designated it as heave it is heave, since it is pure by the words of the Torah. You are the one who decided that it has to be burned.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They were qualified. And why does he treat them as disqualified? Not to slaughter the sacrifice for them. But do they not become sancta only by the slaughter? They should be redeemed and be eaten! Rebbi Ḥanania said, he has profane [bread] before him which he could not eat and you are saying, they should be redeemed and be eaten? Rebbi [Ḥanina] said, they were disqualified. Since they are in a hurry to bring their thanksgiving sacrifices because of the leavened bread with the sacrifice, it is impossible that not the blood of one of them be spilled and it becomes disqualified.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “He should bleed it even if he intends to make a blemish.” This parallels another opinion of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain about sancta for which he is liable following Rebbi Simeon.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: You shall not eat it, on the earth you shall you shall spill it like water. I did permit you its blood only for spilling. Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, is not about disqualified sancta written so, you shall not eat it, on the earth you shall spill it like water? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it was said for preparation. Just as the water prepares, so the blood shall prepare.

It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see, [but] you may see Heaven’s. There are Tannaim who state, not even Heaven’s. He who said, yours you may not see, you may see Heaven’s, if its dedication precedes its elimination. He who said, not even Heaven’s, if its dedication is after its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain it about sancta for which he is responsible in case of alienation following Rebbi Simeon.

It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see; you may see it in the street; there are Tannaim who state, not even if in the street;. He who says, yours you may not see, you may see it in the street, if his renunciation of ownership precedes its elimination; he who said, not even in the street, if his renunciation of ownership follows its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it for sancta, etc.

Rebbi Yose asked, if somebody benefited from Temple property less than the value of a perutah, is he liable for reimbursement? (He said to him.) Let us hear from the following: What he appropriated from sancta he has to repay, except what is less than the value of a perutah. There are Tannaim who state, to add. (He who said except, for) [he who said “except what is less than the value of a perutah” for reimbursement and] sacrifice. He who said “to add”, for reimbursement. As you are saying there, intentionally less than the value of a perutah, even though he does not pay the fifth and a reparation sacrifice he has to pay to the tribe, one says the same here. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, is that not a Mishnah? “Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth, if intentionally he is not liable for restitution even as value of wood”? He told them, there it is impossible to complete, but here it is possible to complete.

MISHNAH: With the following one fulfills his obligation on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed, nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir, if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation.

MISHNAH: With the following one fulfills his obligation on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed, nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir, if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation.

MISHNAH: And with the following vegetables a person can fulfill his obligation on Passover: With Romaine lettuce, with endives, with gingidium. harhabina and bitter herb. One fulfills his obligation with both fresh and wilted, but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth; and they may be combined for the volume of an olive. One fulfills his obligation with their stalk, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed.

Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not like one who burns sancta on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer told him, it is burned automatically. Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not transgressing it should not be seen, and it should notbe found? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by you than a prohibition which will come before you.

HALAKHAH: It turns out that Rebbi Meïr parallels Rebbi Eliezer but is more stringent than Rebbi Eliezer. For Rebbi Eliezer says “that he not transgress not to be seen nor be found.” Rebbi Meïr says, that he not possibly transgress not to be seen nor be found. It turns out that the rabbis parallel Rebbi Joshua but are more stringent than Rebbi Joshua. For Rebbi Joshua says that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, and the rabbis say, even on weekdays one does not burn sancta.

HALAKHAH: It turns out that Rebbi Meïr parallels Rebbi Eliezer but is more stringent than Rebbi Eliezer. For Rebbi Eliezer says “that he not transgress not to be seen nor be found.” Rebbi Meïr says, that he not possibly transgress not to be seen nor be found. It turns out that the rabbis parallel Rebbi Joshua but are more stringent than Rebbi Joshua. For Rebbi Joshua says that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, and the rabbis say, even on weekdays one does not burn sancta.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah declares liable for squeezed blood.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “They said to him, is that not squeezed blood? And squeezed blood is disqualified on the altar. And also from the following, most of it was not received in a vessel, and blood not received in a vessel is disqualified on the altar.” Does Rebbi Jehudah hold that blood invalidates blood? Since he did not reply, it follows that he accepted their position. Since in the other case he does not hold so but did not respond, so here he does not hold so but did not respond. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “Not only life blood for sancta, matter appropriate for atonement, from where life blood for profane animals and squeezed blood for both sancta and profane animals? The verse says blood and all blood. When it is about life it mentions atonement, for squeezed blood it does not mention atonement.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah declares liable for squeezed blood.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “They said to him, is that not squeezed blood? And squeezed blood is disqualified on the altar. And also from the following, most of it was not received in a vessel, and blood not received in a vessel is disqualified on the altar.” Does Rebbi Jehudah hold that blood invalidates blood? Since he did not reply, it follows that he accepted their position. Since in the other case he does not hold so but did not respond, so here he does not hold so but did not respond. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “Not only life blood for sancta, matter appropriate for atonement, from where life blood for profane animals and squeezed blood for both sancta and profane animals? The verse says blood and all blood. When it is about life it mentions atonement, for squeezed blood it does not mention atonement.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified. [But if he tied it with the bridle, made it a shoe lest it slip, put his toga on it because of flies, it is qualified. This is the principle: Anything for its needs, it is qualified. For any other need, it is disqualified.]” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abun said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14th which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel.

HALAKHAH: What does Sabbath rest mean? Did we not state, “One who desecrates sancta, or abases the holidays, or breaks the Covenant of our father Abraham, or is insolent against the Torah, even if in his hands are learning and good deeds, has no part in the Future World.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, what is optional? If he wants he cooks, if he does not want he does not cook.

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

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

HALAKHAH: A bone with no meat on it, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is forbidden to break it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break it. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow in a marrow-bone. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and profit from the bone? They wanted to say that one may not strip off from the disqualified. Rebbi Eleazar said, and even if you say that one may strip, he explains it following Rebbi Jacob, since Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: why did they say, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Because he who burns causes breaking. Samuel said, one may subscribe to the brain in the head but one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. One may subscribe to the brain in the head because one can take it out through the ear. But one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone since one could only extricate it by breaking. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone, but if he subscribed, he subscribed. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Because of the loss of sancta. In Samuel’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Samuel thinks like Rebbi Jacob, as Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure.

It was stated: one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors, since they increase lewd behavior. Bar Qappara stated, because they bring sancta to disqualification. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Issy: One does not form a group from proselytes. Since they are [faulty they are not] diligent about it and bring it to disqualification.

MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave.

MISHNAH: The deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening but not [other] sancta. He who hears about a death or for whom bones were collected immerses himself and eats sancta. A proselyte who converted on Passover eve, the House of Shammai say that he immerses himself and eats his Pesaḥ in the evening, but the House of Hillel say that he who separates from the prepuce is like one who separates from a grave.

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

If he entered in the night, if he entered before noontime? Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eliezer would hold with Rebbi Simeon, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and into the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one be liable for eating sancta one is liable for entering the Sanctuary, and in case one be not liable for eating sancta one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary. If Rebbi Simeon would hold with Rebbi Eliezer, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and in the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one is liable for entering the Sanctuary one is liable for eating sancta and in case one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary one is not liable for eating sancta.

If he entered in the night, if he entered before noontime? Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eliezer would hold with Rebbi Simeon, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and into the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one be liable for eating sancta one is liable for entering the Sanctuary, and in case one be not liable for eating sancta one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary. If Rebbi Simeon would hold with Rebbi Eliezer, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and in the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one is liable for entering the Sanctuary one is liable for eating sancta and in case one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary one is not liable for eating sancta.

If he entered in the night, if he entered before noontime? Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eliezer would hold with Rebbi Simeon, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and into the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one be liable for eating sancta one is liable for entering the Sanctuary, and in case one be not liable for eating sancta one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary. If Rebbi Simeon would hold with Rebbi Eliezer, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and in the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one is liable for entering the Sanctuary one is liable for eating sancta and in case one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary one is not liable for eating sancta.

If he entered in the night, if he entered before noontime? Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eliezer would hold with Rebbi Simeon, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and into the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one be liable for eating sancta one is liable for entering the Sanctuary, and in case one be not liable for eating sancta one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary. If Rebbi Simeon would hold with Rebbi Eliezer, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and in the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one is liable for entering the Sanctuary one is liable for eating sancta and in case one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary one is not liable for eating sancta.

If he entered in the night, if he entered before noontime? Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eliezer would hold with Rebbi Simeon, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and into the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one be liable for eating sancta one is liable for entering the Sanctuary, and in case one be not liable for eating sancta one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary. If Rebbi Simeon would hold with Rebbi Eliezer, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and in the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one is liable for entering the Sanctuary one is liable for eating sancta and in case one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary one is not liable for eating sancta.

If he entered in the night, if he entered before noontime? Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eliezer would hold with Rebbi Simeon, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and into the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one be liable for eating sancta one is liable for entering the Sanctuary, and in case one be not liable for eating sancta one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary. If Rebbi Simeon would hold with Rebbi Eliezer, what is the reason on she may not touch any sancta and in the Sanctuary she may not come? In case one is liable for entering the Sanctuary one is liable for eating sancta and in case one is not liable for entering the Sanctuary one is not liable for eating sancta.

We find that the Temple was destroyed the first time only because they were active idolators, and uncoverers of nakedness, and spillers of blood. And so the second time. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Torta said, we find that Shiloh was destroyed only because they slighted the holidays and desecrated the sancta. We find that the Temple was destroyed the first time only because they were active idolators, and uncoverers of nakedness, and spillers of blood. But of the second we know that they toiled in the Torah, were careful about the commandments and tithes, and every good custom was in them; only they loved money and hated one another without reason. Hate without reason is hard for it is the equivalent if idolatry, and uncovering nakedness, and spilling of blood. An example. Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Abuna, were sitting and saying, it is worse since the first time it was rebuilt but the second time it was not rebuilt. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the first ones repented, the second ones did not repent. Rebbi Eleazar said, the first time their sin was brought into the open and so was their end; the second time their sin was brought into the open but their end was not brought into the open. They asked Rebbi Eliezer, are the later generations more qualified than the first? He told them, your witness, the Temple, shall prove it. Our forefathers removed the ceiling, the curtain of Jehudah was lifted, but we blew out the walls, who are saying, make bare, make bare, up to its foundations. They said, any generation in which it is not rebuilt is debited as if it had destroyed it.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged. Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition. Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel. What did they do [at travel time]? They put a wine-cooler over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said, they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged. Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition. Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel. What did they do [at travel time]? They put a wine-cooler over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said, they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: There we stated: Intentional [impurity] of the Sanctuary and its sancta is atoned by the he-goat whose blood is brought inside and the Day of Atonement. The remainder of the transgressions mentioned in the Torah, minor or severe ones, intentional and unintentional, [known and unknown, positive commandments and prohibitions, extirpations and capital crimes, the scapegoat atones.]

“If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since Rebbi Simeon said, sancta for whose alienation he is responsible are like his own property. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, because of an instituted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion is understandable; “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim.” Is that Rebbi Simeon’s? Even though the city dwellers agreed to pay, Temple property cannot be released without an oath.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes] since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The scholars who teach the priests the rules of slaughter, rules of receiving, rules of sprinkling, take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Isaac bar Redifa in the name of Immi: The inspectors of defects of sancta take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simlai: Those who correct the scroll of the Temple courtyard take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Assi: The two judges of robberies take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge. Samuel said, women who are weaving the gobelins take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge; Rav Ḥuna said, from disbursements for repair of the House. How do they disagree? Samuel makes it a sacrifice, Rav Huna makes it part of the building. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs stated: The incense and all public sacrifices come from the disbursement from the lodge. The golden altar and vessels for the Service come from the excess of libations. The altar for elevation sacrifices, the building, and the courtyards come from the leftover in the lodge. The outside of the courtyards come from the lodge for maintenance of the House. But was it not stated: One commits me`ilah with stones of the Temple or the courtyards. How can one commit me`ilah with leftovers? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, one commits me`ilah with leftovers. Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Meïr said this only during its year. But here we are after its year.

As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. A Mishnah says so, “their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it if they were redeemed unblemished and then became defective. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Does the Mishnah say so? “Their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Yose: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. If you are saying they did not become profane, how could the sanctity of the altar fall on sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple?

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. A Mishnah says so, “their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it if they were redeemed unblemished and then became defective. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Does the Mishnah say so? “Their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Yose: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. If you are saying they did not become profane, how could the sanctity of the altar fall on sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple?

Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. A Mishnah says so, “their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Explain it if they were redeemed unblemished and then became defective. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Does the Mishnah say so? “Their offspring and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Yose: Sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple which were redeemed unblemished become profane. If you are saying they did not become profane, how could the sanctity of the altar fall on sancta given for the upkeep of the Temple?

The sanctity of the altar falls on defective animals. In which respect? For shearing and work. “ If somebody dedicated a female for his elevation offering, or his Pesaḥ, or his reparation offering, it effects substitution. Rebbi Simeon says, for his elevation offering it effects substitution; for his Pesaḥ or his reparation offering it does not effect substitution.” “ Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, neither for his elevation offering, nor his Pesaḥ, nor his reparation offering, does it effect substitution.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird. [And] Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is, if there are differences in its own kind, so much more if it is not its own kind. What are differences in its own kind? As it was stated, “a yearling as reparation offering, and he brought one of two years, he satisfied his obligation; a two-year old as reparation offering, and he brought one of three years, he did not satisfy his obligation”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua said the same. As Rebbi Joshua said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth, so Rebbi Simeon said, a female as elevation offering is sanctified only for its money’s worth. If you would say that they are sancta as to their body, they should graze. “Rebbi said, I agree with Rebbi Simeon about the Pesah; could the Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering? But I do not agree with the words of Rebbi Simeon for reparation offerings; could a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering?” Rebbi Abbin said, in case a Pesaḥ be brought as a well being offering, its body is brought as well-being offering; in case a reparation offering be brought as an elevation offering, its body cannot be brought as elevation offering. What about it? In one case one says, it is sanctified for its money’s worth; in one case one says, it is sanctified in its body.

It was stated: Altar sancta take what is appropriate for them from sancta of upkeep of the Temple. Sancta of upkeep of the Temple do not take what is appropriate for them from altar sancta. But did we not state, “any vessel which they deem is needed for the upkeep of the Temple they keep, but the remainder is sold and their proceeds fall into the lodge of upkeep of the Temple”? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, so is the Mishnah: in case of need from the lodge of upkeep of the Temple.

It was stated: Altar sancta take what is appropriate for them from sancta of upkeep of the Temple. Sancta of upkeep of the Temple do not take what is appropriate for them from altar sancta. But did we not state, “any vessel which they deem is needed for the upkeep of the Temple they keep, but the remainder is sold and their proceeds fall into the lodge of upkeep of the Temple”? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, so is the Mishnah: in case of need from the lodge of upkeep of the Temple.

It was stated: Altar sancta take what is appropriate for them from sancta of upkeep of the Temple. Sancta of upkeep of the Temple do not take what is appropriate for them from altar sancta. But did we not state, “any vessel which they deem is needed for the upkeep of the Temple they keep, but the remainder is sold and their proceeds fall into the lodge of upkeep of the Temple”? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, so is the Mishnah: in case of need from the lodge of upkeep of the Temple.

It was stated: Altar sancta take what is appropriate for them from sancta of upkeep of the Temple. Sancta of upkeep of the Temple do not take what is appropriate for them from altar sancta. But did we not state, “any vessel which they deem is needed for the upkeep of the Temple they keep, but the remainder is sold and their proceeds fall into the lodge of upkeep of the Temple”? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, so is the Mishnah: in case of need from the lodge of upkeep of the Temple.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mix-up.” Maybe one of them would die and it turn out that moneys of dying purification sacrifices were mixed up in them. [But did we not state] (It was stated): A woman who said, I have to bring a nest, brings the money for the nest and puts it in the horn, and eats from sancta without worry. And the Cohen does not worry that maybe moneys of dying purification sacrifices are mixed up in them. [For what we are saying is about purification sacrifices whose owner certainly died. We could say, let us choose two zuz and throw them into the River, then the remainder should be permitted, but do we not say in general that Rebbi Jehudah does not accept retroactive choices?]

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

“And one makes a helmeted kid-goat in the Passover night, but the Sages forbid.” “What is a helmeted kid-goat? Entirely roasted, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. If he parboiled part of it, or cooked part of it, this is not a helmeted kid-goat. One serves helmeted kid-goat in the evening of the first day of Tabernacles, (and on the first day of) [and in the night of the last day of] Passover. One serves helmeted calf on the first night of Passover but not helmeted kid-goat.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Theudas of Rome led the people of Rome to eat helmeted kid-goat in the Passover nights. The Sages sent and said to him, if you were not Theudas, would we not put you in the ban? Who was Theudas? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, because he was providing for the rabbis. Are you not causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple? And anybody causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple has to be put in the ban.

“And one makes a helmeted kid-goat in the Passover night, but the Sages forbid.” “What is a helmeted kid-goat? Entirely roasted, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. If he parboiled part of it, or cooked part of it, this is not a helmeted kid-goat. One serves helmeted kid-goat in the evening of the first day of Tabernacles, (and on the first day of) [and in the night of the last day of] Passover. One serves helmeted calf on the first night of Passover but not helmeted kid-goat.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Theudas of Rome led the people of Rome to eat helmeted kid-goat in the Passover nights. The Sages sent and said to him, if you were not Theudas, would we not put you in the ban? Who was Theudas? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, because he was providing for the rabbis. Are you not causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple? And anybody causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple has to be put in the ban.

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

A person was tithing following the rules. Rebbi Mana said to him, stand up and say, I removed the sancta from the house.

MISHNAH: The dissolution of vows flies in the air and has no support. The rules of the Sabbath, holiday sacrifices, and larceny on sancta are like mountains hanging on a hair, few verses and many rules. Civil law, Temple service, purity and impurity, and forbidden sexual relations have support. All of them are the body of the Torah.

MISHNAH: One washes hands for profane food, tithe, and heave, but for sancta one immerses. And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body.

There, we have stated: [“For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death or a fine of a fifth; they are forbidden to lay persons, are property of the Cohen, may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands and sundown.] This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, you are saying tithe does not need washing, but here, you are saying that tithe needs washing. When you are saying that tithe needs washing, following the rabbis; but when you are saying that tithe does not need washing, following Rebbi Meïr. As we have stated there, “anything which requires immersion by the words of the Sopherim makes sancta impure and disqualifies heave but is permitted for profane food and tithe, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” He did not understand that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: What means, “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body became disqualified from consuming tithe. How it that? If you are saying, tithe needs washing, [for one who intends to eat. If you are saying, tithe does not need washing,] if he intends to touch. But does not one who wants to eat also want to touch? Only because of [handwashing as discipline. But did we not state “heave”? For heave is there] handwashing as discipline? Therefore about profane food prepared in the purity of sancta. But is profane food prepared in the purity of sancta not profane food? Explain either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, as we have stated there: “profane food prepared in the purity of sancta is profane food. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, it is like heave, to be impure in two stages and disqualified in the third.”

There, we have stated: [“For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death or a fine of a fifth; they are forbidden to lay persons, are property of the Cohen, may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands and sundown.] This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, you are saying tithe does not need washing, but here, you are saying that tithe needs washing. When you are saying that tithe needs washing, following the rabbis; but when you are saying that tithe does not need washing, following Rebbi Meïr. As we have stated there, “anything which requires immersion by the words of the Sopherim makes sancta impure and disqualifies heave but is permitted for profane food and tithe, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” He did not understand that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: What means, “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body became disqualified from consuming tithe. How it that? If you are saying, tithe needs washing, [for one who intends to eat. If you are saying, tithe does not need washing,] if he intends to touch. But does not one who wants to eat also want to touch? Only because of [handwashing as discipline. But did we not state “heave”? For heave is there] handwashing as discipline? Therefore about profane food prepared in the purity of sancta. But is profane food prepared in the purity of sancta not profane food? Explain either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, as we have stated there: “profane food prepared in the purity of sancta is profane food. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, it is like heave, to be impure in two stages and disqualified in the third.”

There, we have stated: [“For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death or a fine of a fifth; they are forbidden to lay persons, are property of the Cohen, may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands and sundown.] This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, you are saying tithe does not need washing, but here, you are saying that tithe needs washing. When you are saying that tithe needs washing, following the rabbis; but when you are saying that tithe does not need washing, following Rebbi Meïr. As we have stated there, “anything which requires immersion by the words of the Sopherim makes sancta impure and disqualifies heave but is permitted for profane food and tithe, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” He did not understand that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: What means, “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body became disqualified from consuming tithe. How it that? If you are saying, tithe needs washing, [for one who intends to eat. If you are saying, tithe does not need washing,] if he intends to touch. But does not one who wants to eat also want to touch? Only because of [handwashing as discipline. But did we not state “heave”? For heave is there] handwashing as discipline? Therefore about profane food prepared in the purity of sancta. But is profane food prepared in the purity of sancta not profane food? Explain either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, as we have stated there: “profane food prepared in the purity of sancta is profane food. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, it is like heave, to be impure in two stages and disqualified in the third.”

There, we have stated: [“For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death or a fine of a fifth; they are forbidden to lay persons, are property of the Cohen, may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands and sundown.] This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, you are saying tithe does not need washing, but here, you are saying that tithe needs washing. When you are saying that tithe needs washing, following the rabbis; but when you are saying that tithe does not need washing, following Rebbi Meïr. As we have stated there, “anything which requires immersion by the words of the Sopherim makes sancta impure and disqualifies heave but is permitted for profane food and tithe, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” He did not understand that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: What means, “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body became disqualified from consuming tithe. How it that? If you are saying, tithe needs washing, [for one who intends to eat. If you are saying, tithe does not need washing,] if he intends to touch. But does not one who wants to eat also want to touch? Only because of [handwashing as discipline. But did we not state “heave”? For heave is there] handwashing as discipline? Therefore about profane food prepared in the purity of sancta. But is profane food prepared in the purity of sancta not profane food? Explain either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, as we have stated there: “profane food prepared in the purity of sancta is profane food. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, it is like heave, to be impure in two stages and disqualified in the third.”

“But for sancta one immerses.” Anywhere we state “immerses” it means in 40 seah. But did we not state, “he who washes his hands in the Temple needs a quartarius”? Rebbi Eleazar said, here for impure hands, there fore pure hands. [Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, even if you are saying here and there for pure hands, here and there for impure hands.] Here for dedicated Temple sancta, there for profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.

“But for sancta one immerses.” Anywhere we state “immerses” it means in 40 seah. But did we not state, “he who washes his hands in the Temple needs a quartarius”? Rebbi Eleazar said, here for impure hands, there fore pure hands. [Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, even if you are saying here and there for pure hands, here and there for impure hands.] Here for dedicated Temple sancta, there for profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.

“But for sancta one immerses.” Anywhere we state “immerses” it means in 40 seah. But did we not state, “he who washes his hands in the Temple needs a quartarius”? Rebbi Eleazar said, here for impure hands, there fore pure hands. [Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, even if you are saying here and there for pure hands, here and there for impure hands.] Here for dedicated Temple sancta, there for profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

MISHNAH: He who immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food is prohibited tithe. He who immersed himself for tithe and considers himself pure for tithe is prohibited heave. He who immersed himself heave and considers himself pure for heave is prohibited sancta. He who immersed himself for sancta and considers himself pure for sancta is prohibited handling ashes of the Red Cow. He who immersed himself for the more stringent is permitted the lesser one. He who immersed himself and does not consider himself pure is as if he did not immerse.

MISHNAH: The garments of the vulgar are “support” for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are “support” for the eaters of heave; the garments of eaters of heave are “support” for the eaters of sancta. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious of the priests but his handkerchief was “support” for sancta. Joḥanan ben Gudgada all his life ate in the purity of sancta but his handkerchief was “support” for the ashes of the Red Cow.

MISHNAH: The garments of the vulgar are “support” for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are “support” for the eaters of heave; the garments of eaters of heave are “support” for the eaters of sancta. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious of the priests but his handkerchief was “support” for sancta. Joḥanan ben Gudgada all his life ate in the purity of sancta but his handkerchief was “support” for the ashes of the Red Cow.

MISHNAH: The garments of the vulgar are “support” for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are “support” for the eaters of heave; the garments of eaters of heave are “support” for the eaters of sancta. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious of the priests but his handkerchief was “support” for sancta. Joḥanan ben Gudgada all his life ate in the purity of sancta but his handkerchief was “support” for the ashes of the Red Cow.

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state, “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state, “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.