sanctity

And that it was altogether impossible that such wrongs should be done unto them, that had committed it to the holiness of the place, and to the majesty and inviolable sanctity of the temple, honoured over all the world.

Having arrived at Jerusalem, sacrificed, and offered thank-offerings to the Greatest God, and done whatever else was suitable to the sanctity of the place, and entered the inner court,

And when she said this, the tyrant came, and took hold of her garments, and said: O Nicanora, did I not leave you lying on the bed from your disease? Whence, then, have you found this power and strength, so as to be able to come to these magicians? Unless, then, you tell who is the healer, I shall punish you most severely. And Nicanora answered, and said: O rearer of tyrants, cast away from yourself this tyranny, and forget your wicked works, and abandon this temporary life, and put away vainglory, because it passes like a shadow: seek rather what is everlasting, and take away from yourself the beastly and impious work of base desire, and reject vain intercourse, which is the husbandry of death, the dark prison; and overturn the middle wall of corruption, and prepare for yourself a life chaste and spotless, that we may altogether live in sanctity. If, then, you wish me to remain with you, I will live with you in continence.

I am convinced that any one who takes part in the spectacle which I have described will he filled with astonishment and indescribable wonder and be profoundly affected in his mind at the thought of the sanctity which is attached to each detail of the service.

I think that these particulars with regard to our discussion are worth narrating, and on account of the sanctity and natural meaning of the law, I have been induced to explain them to you clearly, Philocrates, because of your own devotion to learning.

FOR the Reason of our father Eleazar, like a fine steersman steering the ship of sanctity on the sea of the passions, though buffeted by the threats of the tyrant and swept by the swelling waves of the tortures, never shifted for one moment the helm of sanctity until he sailed into the haven of victory over death.

FOR the Reason of our father Eleazar, like a fine steersman steering the ship of sanctity on the sea of the passions, though buffeted by the threats of the tyrant and swept by the swelling waves of the tortures, never shifted for one moment the helm of sanctity until he sailed into the haven of victory over death.

No city besieged with many and cunning engines ever defended itself so well as did that holy man when his sacred soul was attacked with scourge and rack and flame, and he moved them who were laying siege to his soul through his Reason that was the shield of sanctity.

[And the festivals and the Sabbaths he established in their sanctity], and their polluted ones he burnt in the fire, and the lying prophets which deceived the people, these also he burnt in the fire, and the people who listened to them when they were living, he cast them into the brook Kidron, and heaped stones upon them.

But let us consider who those persons are whose guidance Celsus would have us to follow, so that we may not be in want of guides who are recommended both by their antiquity and sanctity. He refers us to divinely inspired poets, as he calls them, to wise men and philosophers, without mentioning their names; so that, after promising to point out those who should guide us, he simply hands us over in a general way to divinely inspired poets, wise men, and philosophers. If he had specified their names in particular, we should have felt ourselves bound to show him that he wished to give us as guides men who were blinded to the truth, and who must therefore lead us into error; or that if not wholly blinded, yet they are in error in many matters of belief. But whether Orpheus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or even Homer himself, and Hesiod, are the persons whom he means by “inspired poets,” let any one show how those who follow their guidance walk in a better way, or lead a more excellent life, than those who, being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues, and even all Jewish superstition, that they may look upward through the Word of God to the one God, who is the Father of the Word. Who, then, are those wise men and philosophers from whom Celsus would have us to learn so many divine truths, and for whom we are to give up Moses the servant of God, the prophets of the Creator of the world, who have spoken so many things by a truly divine inspiration, and even Him who has given light and taught the way of piety to the whole human race, so that no one can reproach Him if he remains without a share in the knowledge of His mysteries? Such, indeed, was the abounding love which He had for men, that He gave to the more learned a theology capable of raising the soul far above all earthly things; while with no less consideration He comes down to the weaker capacities of ignorant men, of simple women, of slaves, and, in short, of all those who from Jesus alone could have received that help for the better regulation of their lives which is supplied by His instructions in regard to the Divine Being, adapted to their wants and capacities.

Let us see what Celsus further says of God, and how he urges us to the use of those things which are properly called idol offerings, or, still better, offerings to demons, although, in his ignorance of what true sanctity is, and what sacrifices are well-pleasing to God, he call them “holy sacrifices.” His words are, “God is the God of all alike; He is good, He stands in need of nothing, and He is without jealousy. What, then, is there to hinder those who are most devoted to His service from taking part in public feasts?” I cannot see the connection which he fancies between God’s being good, and independent, and free from jealousy, and His devoted servants taking part in public feasts. I confess, indeed, that from the fact that God is good, and without want of anything, and free from jealousy, it would follow as a consequence that we might take part in public feasts, if it were proved that the public feasts had nothing wrong in them, and were grounded upon true views of the character of God, so that they resulted naturally from a devout service of God. If, however, the so-called public festivals can in no way be shown to accord with the service of God, but may on the contrary be proved to have been devised by men when occasion offered to commemorate some human events, or to set forth certain qualities of water or earth, or the fruits of the earth,—in that case, it is clear that those who wish to offer an enlightened worship to the Divine Being will act according to sound reason, and not take part in the public feasts. For “to keep a feast,” as one of the wise men of Greece has well said, “is nothing else than to do one’s duty;” and that man truly celebrates a feast who does his duty and prays always, offering up continually bloodless sacrifices in prayer to God. That therefore seems to me a most noble saying of Paul, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”

Like as it is said IH, Yah (Ch-IH, Ch-iah, the corrected Mantuan Codex hath it, so that it may explain the word ChIH, Chiah, living creature, out of the eighth path of the understanding, which is that water of the name Yah, which denoteth father and mother. For when) the light of the former is extended unto the latter (which is the moving of the water) all things reproduce their kind at one and the same time—the waters of good and the waters of evil. (That is, there is reproduction as well in divinity and sanctity as among terrestrial living creatures and man; for by the reptile form souls are symbolized.)

One who lends jars for maaser sheni [wine], even if they were corked, they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. If wine was poured into them without specifying [that it was for sale] they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni before they are corked, but after they are corked they acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. Before they are corked they are neutralized in a hundred and one, but after they are corked they sanctify any quantity. Before they are corked terumah may be taken from one jar for all the others, but after they are corked terumah must be taken from each jar separately.

One who lends jars for maaser sheni [wine], even if they were corked, they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. If wine was poured into them without specifying [that it was for sale] they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni before they are corked, but after they are corked they acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. Before they are corked they are neutralized in a hundred and one, but after they are corked they sanctify any quantity. Before they are corked terumah may be taken from one jar for all the others, but after they are corked terumah must be taken from each jar separately.

One who lends jars for maaser sheni [wine], even if they were corked, they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. If wine was poured into them without specifying [that it was for sale] they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni before they are corked, but after they are corked they acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. Before they are corked they are neutralized in a hundred and one, but after they are corked they sanctify any quantity. Before they are corked terumah may be taken from one jar for all the others, but after they are corked terumah must be taken from each jar separately.

A man may not enter the Temple courtyard or to worship even if he was clean until he immerses himself. Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the high priest perform on that day. And all in sanctity in the Bet Haparvah with the exception of this one alone.

There is no difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem except that in Shiloh sacrifices of lesser sanctity and second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight [of the town], whereas in Jerusalem [they had to be eaten] within the walls. In both places the most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains. After the sanctification of Shiloh there is permission [for altars], but after the sanctification of Jerusalem there is no such permission.

Townspeople who sold the town square, they may buy with the proceeds a synagogue. [If they sold] a synagogue, they may buy with the proceeds an ark. [If they sold] an ark they may buy covers [for scrolls]. [If they sold] covers, they may buy scrolls [of the Tanakh]. [If they sold] scrolls they may buy a Torah. But if they sold a Torah they may not buy with the proceeds scrolls [of the Tanakh]. If [they sold] scrolls they may not buy covers. If [they sold] covers they may not buy an ark. If [they sold] an ark they may not buy a synagogue. If [they sold] a synagogue they may not buy a town square. The same applies to any money left over. They may not sell [something] belonging to a community to an individual because this lowers its sanctity, the words of Rabbi Meir. They said to him: if so, it should not be allowed to sell from a larger town to a smaller one.

The todah and the nazirite's ram are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four; And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any manner, the same day and the night following, until midnight. The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.

The shelamim is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity. It may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and its blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four. And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any way, during two days and one night. The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.

The first-born animal, tithe and the pesah are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and their blood requires one sprinkling, provided that he applies it against the base [of the altar]. They differ in the [rules governing] their eating: The first-born animal is eaten by priests [only], the tithe is eaten by anyone and they can be eaten in any part of the city, prepared in any manner, during two days and one night. The pesah can be eaten only at night, only until midnight, and it can be eaten only by those registered for it, and it can be eaten only when roasted.

If he nipped [the bird sacrifice] with his left [hand] or at night; if he slaughtered hullin within [the Temple courtyard] or a sacrifice outside [the Temple courtyard] they do not defile in the gullet. If he nipped with a knife; or if he nipped hullin within [or] sacrifices without; or [if he sacrificed] turtle-doves before their time or pigeons after their time; [or a bird] whose wing was withered, [or] blind in the eye [or] whose foot was cut off, [all these] defile in the gullet. This is the general rule: all whose unfitness [arose] in sanctity do not defile in the gullet; if their unfitness did not arise in sanctity, they defile in the gullet. And anyone who is unfit who nips, their nipping is invalid, and they [the birds] do not defile in the gullet.

If he nipped [the bird sacrifice] with his left [hand] or at night; if he slaughtered hullin within [the Temple courtyard] or a sacrifice outside [the Temple courtyard] they do not defile in the gullet. If he nipped with a knife; or if he nipped hullin within [or] sacrifices without; or [if he sacrificed] turtle-doves before their time or pigeons after their time; [or a bird] whose wing was withered, [or] blind in the eye [or] whose foot was cut off, [all these] defile in the gullet. This is the general rule: all whose unfitness [arose] in sanctity do not defile in the gullet; if their unfitness did not arise in sanctity, they defile in the gullet. And anyone who is unfit who nips, their nipping is invalid, and they [the birds] do not defile in the gullet.

The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it.

The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it.

Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.

A first-born precedes tithe, because its sanctity is from the womb, and it is eaten by priests. Tithe precedes bird [-offerings] because it is a slaughtered sacrifice, and part of it is most sacred: its blood and innards.

Whether a garment, a sack, or a hide, it requires washing in a holy place. The breaking of an earthen vessel must be in a holy place. And the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel must be in a holy place. In this the hatat is more stringent than [other] sacrifices of higher sanctity.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 25:2): “The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal.” The sanctity of the Sabbatical year falls on anything that is the Eternal’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible to eat it without redemption since Temple property cannot exit without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with money from the Sabbatical! He said to him, the treasurer exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Yose: because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. And here, because his vow of abandonment precedes his dedication.

A holiday next to the Sabbath, be it before the Sabbath or after the Sabbath, and likewise the two holidays of the diaspora, according to him who says they are one sanctity, he may eat; according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may not eat. Even according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may eat as long as there was no possibility to tithe between them. It was stated: “If he asks him on the holiday, he eats on the Sabbath; if he asks him on the Sabbath, he eats on the holiday.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, explain it regarding produce he had intended to use on Sabbath eve. But produce he had not intended on Sabbath eve (to use during the Sabbath) is not included. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Jonah, my father, since we have stated there: “He who takes a vow regarding his friend that he will eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage they permitted because of hatred. Is the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage not comparable to produce that on Sabbath eve he intended to use (later on the Sabbath)? Nevertheless, he only said “because of hatred.”

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you. We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state: “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7): “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it.

HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you. We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state: “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7): “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it.

HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you. We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state: “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7): “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it.

Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for animals? Let us hear from the following: “Roots of rose, thornbush, and sumac have no sanctity of the Sabbatical.” Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on cleansing materials? Let us hear from the following: Asphodel, potash, and aloë fall under the sanctity of the Sabbatical. Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on perfumes? Let us hear from the following: Parḥalabin and laurel trees have no sanctity of the Sabbatical. The colleagues: This is by Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said: Balsamum has no sanctity of the Sabbatical since it is no fruit. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it according to everybody referring to jonquil. What about fuel, for example oakum?

Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for animals? Let us hear from the following: “Roots of rose, thornbush, and sumac have no sanctity of the Sabbatical.” Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on cleansing materials? Let us hear from the following: Asphodel, potash, and aloë fall under the sanctity of the Sabbatical. Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on perfumes? Let us hear from the following: Parḥalabin and laurel trees have no sanctity of the Sabbatical. The colleagues: This is by Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said: Balsamum has no sanctity of the Sabbatical since it is no fruit. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it according to everybody referring to jonquil. What about fuel, for example oakum?

Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for animals? Let us hear from the following: “Roots of rose, thornbush, and sumac have no sanctity of the Sabbatical.” Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on cleansing materials? Let us hear from the following: Asphodel, potash, and aloë fall under the sanctity of the Sabbatical. Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on perfumes? Let us hear from the following: Parḥalabin and laurel trees have no sanctity of the Sabbatical. The colleagues: This is by Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said: Balsamum has no sanctity of the Sabbatical since it is no fruit. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it according to everybody referring to jonquil. What about fuel, for example oakum?

Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for animals? Let us hear from the following: “Roots of rose, thornbush, and sumac have no sanctity of the Sabbatical.” Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on cleansing materials? Let us hear from the following: Asphodel, potash, and aloë fall under the sanctity of the Sabbatical. Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on perfumes? Let us hear from the following: Parḥalabin and laurel trees have no sanctity of the Sabbatical. The colleagues: This is by Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said: Balsamum has no sanctity of the Sabbatical since it is no fruit. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it according to everybody referring to jonquil. What about fuel, for example oakum?

Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for animals? Let us hear from the following: “Roots of rose, thornbush, and sumac have no sanctity of the Sabbatical.” Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on cleansing materials? Let us hear from the following: Asphodel, potash, and aloë fall under the sanctity of the Sabbatical. Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on perfumes? Let us hear from the following: Parḥalabin and laurel trees have no sanctity of the Sabbatical. The colleagues: This is by Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said: Balsamum has no sanctity of the Sabbatical since it is no fruit. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it according to everybody referring to jonquil. What about fuel, for example oakum?

Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for animals? Let us hear from the following: “Roots of rose, thornbush, and sumac have no sanctity of the Sabbatical.” Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on cleansing materials? Let us hear from the following: Asphodel, potash, and aloë fall under the sanctity of the Sabbatical. Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on perfumes? Let us hear from the following: Parḥalabin and laurel trees have no sanctity of the Sabbatical. The colleagues: This is by Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said: Balsamum has no sanctity of the Sabbatical since it is no fruit. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it according to everybody referring to jonquil. What about fuel, for example oakum?

Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for animals? Let us hear from the following: “Roots of rose, thornbush, and sumac have no sanctity of the Sabbatical.” Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on cleansing materials? Let us hear from the following: Asphodel, potash, and aloë fall under the sanctity of the Sabbatical. Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on perfumes? Let us hear from the following: Parḥalabin and laurel trees have no sanctity of the Sabbatical. The colleagues: This is by Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said: Balsamum has no sanctity of the Sabbatical since it is no fruit. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it according to everybody referring to jonquil. What about fuel, for example oakum?

There, we have stated: “Sprouts of new shoots, [of nasturtium,] and the leaves of wild arum cannot receive impurity of food until they become sweet.” Why? Because they are bitter. But are lupines not also bitter? It is different with lupines since they are human food from the start. It is different for these; we would not know that the sanctity of the Sabbatical would not fall on them unless they become sweet.

Did not Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina say: Endives are important enough in the Sabbatical to become susceptible to impurity of food? The reason was spelled out: This is, before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land, there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the other years of the sabbatical cycle. Then they should not be important unless somebody thinks about them! Do we find anything on which from the start the sanctity of the Sabbatical (falls) [does not fall] but in the end the sanctity of the Sabbatical (does not fall) [may fall] on them? They objected: “The sanctity of the Sabbatical does not fall on calamint, hyssop, and thyme if one collected them as wood. If he considered them as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he collected them first as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them immediately.

Did not Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina say: Endives are important enough in the Sabbatical to become susceptible to impurity of food? The reason was spelled out: This is, before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land, there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the other years of the sabbatical cycle. Then they should not be important unless somebody thinks about them! Do we find anything on which from the start the sanctity of the Sabbatical (falls) [does not fall] but in the end the sanctity of the Sabbatical (does not fall) [may fall] on them? They objected: “The sanctity of the Sabbatical does not fall on calamint, hyssop, and thyme if one collected them as wood. If he considered them as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he collected them first as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them immediately.

Did not Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina say: Endives are important enough in the Sabbatical to become susceptible to impurity of food? The reason was spelled out: This is, before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land, there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the other years of the sabbatical cycle. Then they should not be important unless somebody thinks about them! Do we find anything on which from the start the sanctity of the Sabbatical (falls) [does not fall] but in the end the sanctity of the Sabbatical (does not fall) [may fall] on them? They objected: “The sanctity of the Sabbatical does not fall on calamint, hyssop, and thyme if one collected them as wood. If he considered them as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he collected them first as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them immediately.

Did not Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina say: Endives are important enough in the Sabbatical to become susceptible to impurity of food? The reason was spelled out: This is, before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land, there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the other years of the sabbatical cycle. Then they should not be important unless somebody thinks about them! Do we find anything on which from the start the sanctity of the Sabbatical (falls) [does not fall] but in the end the sanctity of the Sabbatical (does not fall) [may fall] on them? They objected: “The sanctity of the Sabbatical does not fall on calamint, hyssop, and thyme if one collected them as wood. If he considered them as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he collected them first as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them immediately.

Did not Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina say: Endives are important enough in the Sabbatical to become susceptible to impurity of food? The reason was spelled out: This is, before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land, there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the other years of the sabbatical cycle. Then they should not be important unless somebody thinks about them! Do we find anything on which from the start the sanctity of the Sabbatical (falls) [does not fall] but in the end the sanctity of the Sabbatical (does not fall) [may fall] on them? They objected: “The sanctity of the Sabbatical does not fall on calamint, hyssop, and thyme if one collected them as wood. If he considered them as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he collected them first as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them immediately.

They said in the name of four elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: The arguments of Rav seem to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Judan, are the rules different for a wick and an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical.

Does one not destry animal feed? Explain it that animal feed is used for humans. Rebbi Mana said, explain it about the sanctity by removal of the Sabbatical, and it does not imply anything.

That means that sanctity falls on it when it is still standing. That means, if he separated before it was one third ripe it did not become holy.

It was stated: If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it from him, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is free. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also the Sages did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. It was stated: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose says, from where that grain one-third ripe before New Year’s day may be brought in during the Sabbatical? The verse says (Lev. 25:3): “You shall gather its yield,” [even] in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, you follow the first third, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose said, you follow the first third. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abina, you say two things which contradict one another. Here you teach that the Sages also did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. There, you teach that Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba then just as Rebbi Aqiba says the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose must say, the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the Sabbatical, in the Sabbatical it is forbidden as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical did not fall on it since it was grass on which the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the eighth year, in the eighth year it is permitted as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the order of years; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor.

It was stated: If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it from him, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is free. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also the Sages did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. It was stated: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose says, from where that grain one-third ripe before New Year’s day may be brought in during the Sabbatical? The verse says (Lev. 25:3): “You shall gather its yield,” [even] in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, you follow the first third, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose said, you follow the first third. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abina, you say two things which contradict one another. Here you teach that the Sages also did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. There, you teach that Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba then just as Rebbi Aqiba says the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose must say, the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the Sabbatical, in the Sabbatical it is forbidden as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical did not fall on it since it was grass on which the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the eighth year, in the eighth year it is permitted as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the order of years; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor.

It was stated: If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it from him, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is free. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also the Sages did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. It was stated: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose says, from where that grain one-third ripe before New Year’s day may be brought in during the Sabbatical? The verse says (Lev. 25:3): “You shall gather its yield,” [even] in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, you follow the first third, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose said, you follow the first third. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abina, you say two things which contradict one another. Here you teach that the Sages also did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor. There, you teach that Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba then just as Rebbi Aqiba says the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose must say, the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the Sabbatical, in the Sabbatical it is forbidden as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical did not fall on it since it was grass on which the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the eighth year, in the eighth year it is permitted as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the order of years; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor.

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”

There we have stated: “A flask which had been immersed on the same day and [they filled it] from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said that this shall be heave of the tithe after nightfall then it is heave of the tithe. If he said this is eruv, he did not say anything.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥama bar (Aqiba) [Uqba] asked, is this Mishnah not following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, one does not make an eruv for a person after nightfall? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: There it is everybody’s opinion. But here he acquires a place for Sabbath rest for two days while it still is a working day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it was Thursday and he said, this should acquire for me a place for Sabbath rest, in Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion he acquired, in (Rav’s) [the rabbis’] opinion did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose said, why can a person not make an eruv from holiday to Sabbath? Because a person makes an eruv from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath. But here, since he can make an eruv from Sabbath eve to the Sabbath, he may make an eruv even from Thursday to the Sabbath. “Rebbi Eliezer said to them, do you not agree with me that if he used a loaf to make an eruv for the first day, that he may use a loaf to make an eruv for the second day, that if he ate it on the first day it is an eruv for the first day but is not an eruv for the second? Therefore these are two sanctities. They answered him, do you not agree with us that a person does not make a new eruv on a holiday? Therefore it is one sanctity.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented,” etc. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

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

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

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

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

If one was incapacitated and the other officiated. The first has all the sanctity of the High Priesthood on him; the second one is qualified neither as High Priest nor as common priest. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is valid. Whose officiating? Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement; Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. He went out and asked the king: “The bull and the he-goat which are brought today, are they offered from his or from the High Priest’s property?” The king understood what he was asking and answered him, “is it not enough for you that you served once before Him Who spoke and the world was created?” Ben Illem understood that he was removed from the High Priesthood.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

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: “Rebbi Yose says, the basis was perforated down to the abyss. What is the reason? He turned it up, removed its stones, planted precious vine, and built a tower in its midst, this is the Temple, and a wine-press he excavated in it, this is the altar. And also an altar, that is the basis.” Rebbi Simeon says, it was work of Heaven. Since it was work of Heaven, maybe it was not beautiful like artist’s work? The verse says, the roundnesses of your hips are like hoops, formed by artist’s hands; they were more beautiful than those formed by artist’s hands. It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, a small opening was between the Temple Hall and the altar. Once in seventy years young priests climb down and bring it up in sanctity since it was congealed like fig cakes; they come and burn it in sanctity. Just as its pouring was in sanctity, so its burning was in sanctity.” Rebbi said, the Torah let you grasp an expression of love, an expression of fullness, and an expression of inebriation. Rebbi Judah bar Laqqara in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Since the Temple was destroyed, congealing wine disappeared, and white glass disappeared. What is white glass? It was flexible.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, the basis was perforated down to the abyss. What is the reason? He turned it up, removed its stones, planted precious vine, and built a tower in its midst, this is the Temple, and a wine-press he excavated in it, this is the altar. And also an altar, that is the basis.” Rebbi Simeon says, it was work of Heaven. Since it was work of Heaven, maybe it was not beautiful like artist’s work? The verse says, the roundnesses of your hips are like hoops, formed by artist’s hands; they were more beautiful than those formed by artist’s hands. It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, a small opening was between the Temple Hall and the altar. Once in seventy years young priests climb down and bring it up in sanctity since it was congealed like fig cakes; they come and burn it in sanctity. Just as its pouring was in sanctity, so its burning was in sanctity.” Rebbi said, the Torah let you grasp an expression of love, an expression of fullness, and an expression of inebriation. Rebbi Judah bar Laqqara in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Since the Temple was destroyed, congealing wine disappeared, and white glass disappeared. What is white glass? It was flexible.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, the basis was perforated down to the abyss. What is the reason? He turned it up, removed its stones, planted precious vine, and built a tower in its midst, this is the Temple, and a wine-press he excavated in it, this is the altar. And also an altar, that is the basis.” Rebbi Simeon says, it was work of Heaven. Since it was work of Heaven, maybe it was not beautiful like artist’s work? The verse says, the roundnesses of your hips are like hoops, formed by artist’s hands; they were more beautiful than those formed by artist’s hands. It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, a small opening was between the Temple Hall and the altar. Once in seventy years young priests climb down and bring it up in sanctity since it was congealed like fig cakes; they come and burn it in sanctity. Just as its pouring was in sanctity, so its burning was in sanctity.” Rebbi said, the Torah let you grasp an expression of love, an expression of fullness, and an expression of inebriation. Rebbi Judah bar Laqqara in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Since the Temple was destroyed, congealing wine disappeared, and white glass disappeared. What is white glass? It was flexible.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, the basis was perforated down to the abyss. What is the reason? He turned it up, removed its stones, planted precious vine, and built a tower in its midst, this is the Temple, and a wine-press he excavated in it, this is the altar. And also an altar, that is the basis.” Rebbi Simeon says, it was work of Heaven. Since it was work of Heaven, maybe it was not beautiful like artist’s work? The verse says, the roundnesses of your hips are like hoops, formed by artist’s hands; they were more beautiful than those formed by artist’s hands. It was stated: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, a small opening was between the Temple Hall and the altar. Once in seventy years young priests climb down and bring it up in sanctity since it was congealed like fig cakes; they come and burn it in sanctity. Just as its pouring was in sanctity, so its burning was in sanctity.” Rebbi said, the Torah let you grasp an expression of love, an expression of fullness, and an expression of inebriation. Rebbi Judah bar Laqqara in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Since the Temple was destroyed, congealing wine disappeared, and white glass disappeared. What is white glass? It was flexible.

Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical. They said in the name of four Elders: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day>. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical.

If one was incapacitated and the other officiated. The first has all the sanctity of the High Priesthood on him; the second one is qualified neither as High Priest nor as common priest. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is valid. Whose officiating? Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement; Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. He asked the king when he went out: “The bull and the goat which are brought today, from whose property are they offered? From mine or from the High Priest’s?” The king understood what he was asking and answered him, “Ben Illem, is it not enough for you that you served once before Him Who spoke and the world was created? It is enough for you.” Ben Illem understood that he was removed from the High Priesthood.

All appurtenances of the synagogue are like the synagogue. The bench and the arm-chair are like the synagogue. The cover over the Ark is like the Ark. Rebbi Abbahu gave a jacket under the curtain. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The podium and its plates do not have the sanctity of the Ark but the sanctity of the synagogue. The lectern does not have the sanctity of the Ark; it has the sanctity of the synagogue. Rebbi Jeremiah went to the Gaulanitis. He saw them putting a hammer into the Ark. He went and asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, I am saying that they stipulated this from the start. Rebbi Jonah made for himself a chest and stipulated about it, the upper part for scrolls, the lower part for implements.

All appurtenances of the synagogue are like the synagogue. The bench and the arm-chair are like the synagogue. The cover over the Ark is like the Ark. Rebbi Abbahu gave a jacket under the curtain. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The podium and its plates do not have the sanctity of the Ark but the sanctity of the synagogue. The lectern does not have the sanctity of the Ark; it has the sanctity of the synagogue. Rebbi Jeremiah went to the Gaulanitis. He saw them putting a hammer into the Ark. He went and asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, I am saying that they stipulated this from the start. Rebbi Jonah made for himself a chest and stipulated about it, the upper part for scrolls, the lower part for implements.

All appurtenances of the synagogue are like the synagogue. The bench and the arm-chair are like the synagogue. The cover over the Ark is like the Ark. Rebbi Abbahu gave a jacket under the curtain. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The podium and its plates do not have the sanctity of the Ark but the sanctity of the synagogue. The lectern does not have the sanctity of the Ark; it has the sanctity of the synagogue. Rebbi Jeremiah went to the Gaulanitis. He saw them putting a hammer into the Ark. He went and asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, I am saying that they stipulated this from the start. Rebbi Jonah made for himself a chest and stipulated about it, the upper part for scrolls, the lower part for implements.

All appurtenances of the synagogue are like the synagogue. The bench and the arm-chair are like the synagogue. The cover over the Ark is like the Ark. Rebbi Abbahu gave a jacket under the curtain. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The podium and its plates do not have the sanctity of the Ark but the sanctity of the synagogue. The lectern does not have the sanctity of the Ark; it has the sanctity of the synagogue. Rebbi Jeremiah went to the Gaulanitis. He saw them putting a hammer into the Ark. He went and asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, I am saying that they stipulated this from the start. Rebbi Jonah made for himself a chest and stipulated about it, the upper part for scrolls, the lower part for implements.

One writes Torah and Prophets together, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one does not write Torah and Prophets together, but one may write Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs together. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Torah and Ḥumashim have the same sanctity. One does not split a Torah into Ḥumashim, but one turns Ḥumashim into a Torah. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a Torah which was split into Ḥumashim remains in its sanctity. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One does not read in public from an incomplete Torah. But was it not stated: It is permitted to read in public in Genesis up to the deluge, in Leviticus up to it was on the eighth day, in Numbers up to it was when the Ark travelled? This Ursicinus set fire to the Torah of the Sennabarites. They came and asked Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, whether one may read from the scroll in public. They told them, it is forbidden. Not that it is forbidden but since they will feel so badly they will buy another one.

One writes Torah and Prophets together, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one does not write Torah and Prophets together, but one may write Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs together. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Torah and Ḥumashim have the same sanctity. One does not split a Torah into Ḥumashim, but one turns Ḥumashim into a Torah. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a Torah which was split into Ḥumashim remains in its sanctity. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One does not read in public from an incomplete Torah. But was it not stated: It is permitted to read in public in Genesis up to the deluge, in Leviticus up to it was on the eighth day, in Numbers up to it was when the Ark travelled? This Ursicinus set fire to the Torah of the Sennabarites. They came and asked Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, whether one may read from the scroll in public. They told them, it is forbidden. Not that it is forbidden but since they will feel so badly they will buy another one.

MISHNAH: One does not sell public property to a private person because one diminishes its sanctity, the words of Rebbi Meïr. They said to him, if this be so, then not even from a large town to a small town.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry. In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place, [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure.

MISHNAH: They formulated a principle about a sister-in-law: Any woman forbidden by an incest prohibition has neither ḥalîṣah nor levirate. If she is forbidden by a commandment prohibition or one of sanctity, she has ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Her sister who is also her sister-in-law has either ḥalîṣah or levirate.

It is obvious that if somebody had ḥalîṣah with a woman forbidden by a commandment or because of sanctity, the co-widow was freed. When he had intercourse with her? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree; they say the co-widow was not freed. Rebbi Shammai switches the [names] of this tradition. The position of Rebbi Shammai is reasonable since everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated for women forbidden by a commandment or because of sanctity, if he had ḥalîṣah or intercourse with her, the co-widow was freed.

It is obvious that if somebody had ḥalîṣah with a woman forbidden by a commandment or because of sanctity, the co-widow was freed. When he had intercourse with her? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree; they say the co-widow was not freed. Rebbi Shammai switches the [names] of this tradition. The position of Rebbi Shammai is reasonable since everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated for women forbidden by a commandment or because of sanctity, if he had ḥalîṣah or intercourse with her, the co-widow was freed.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, he who says ‘like Jerusalem’ did not say anything,” since this one intended to refer only to its wood and stones. “Like the Torah,” that is permitted. “Like the sanctity of the Torah, like what is written in it,” that is forbidden like the sacrifices written in it. There are Tannaїm who state, “like the Torah and what is written in it,” is permitted. Rebbi Abin bar Cahana said, that is Rebbi Simeon’s, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the words of Rebbi Simeon, if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is free also for the rest. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. “Like the Torah”, like the sanctity of the Torah. “Like what is written in it,” like the sanctity of the verses.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, he who says ‘like Jerusalem’ did not say anything,” since this one intended to refer only to its wood and stones. “Like the Torah,” that is permitted. “Like the sanctity of the Torah, like what is written in it,” that is forbidden like the sacrifices written in it. There are Tannaїm who state, “like the Torah and what is written in it,” is permitted. Rebbi Abin bar Cahana said, that is Rebbi Simeon’s, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the words of Rebbi Simeon, if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is free also for the rest. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. “Like the Torah”, like the sanctity of the Torah. “Like what is written in it,” like the sanctity of the verses.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, he who says ‘like Jerusalem’ did not say anything,” since this one intended to refer only to its wood and stones. “Like the Torah,” that is permitted. “Like the sanctity of the Torah, like what is written in it,” that is forbidden like the sacrifices written in it. There are Tannaїm who state, “like the Torah and what is written in it,” is permitted. Rebbi Abin bar Cahana said, that is Rebbi Simeon’s, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, by the words of Rebbi Simeon, if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is free also for the rest. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. “Like the Torah”, like the sanctity of the Torah. “Like what is written in it,” like the sanctity of the verses.

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they have been cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he has divorced her, what is the situation?

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they have been cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he has divorced her, what is the situation?

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they have been cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he has divorced her, what is the situation?

Any expressions can be used for redemption except the expression “exchange”. Any expressions can be used for exchange except the expression “redemption.” If he said about dedications to the altar: “this one is for that one, exchange for that one, barter for that one,” it is an exchange. “This is redeemed for that one,” it is no exchange. If he said about dedications for the upkeep of the Temple: “this one is for that one, barter for that one,” its money’s worth is engaged. “Exchange for that one,” he did not say anything. The other [expressions] serve for redemption and exchange. Dedications to the altar are subject both to redemption and to exchange. [Animals] dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple who were dedicated before developing a defect, “this one is for that one,” if he wants to sacrifice a perfect animal, one tells him that its sanctity is for its money’s worth. If he wants to eat it after it developed a blemish, one tells him that it is holy as exchange: “Itself and its exchange shall be holy.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, since he knows that anybody who exchanges is whipped, it never occured to him to exchange.

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they were cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he divorced her; what is the situation?

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they were cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he divorced her; what is the situation?

Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they were cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here, he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he divorced her; what is the situation?

Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rebbi Mana said, it is written: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if a High Priest sinned, one whips him. If you would say by 23, his elevation would be his degradation. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him by a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses, if one would return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They beat him. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiṭṭim. The next day, Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall, when Rebbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He said to him, why is the master not telling us words of instruction? He started clapping with one hand. He asked, does one clap with one? He answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing. He told him, I shall free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, tomorrow I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel [from Egypt], He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt, He and all His Court. He asked him, why did you say these things? He told him, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good.

Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rebbi Mana said, it is written: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if a High Priest sinned, one whips him. If you would say by 23, his elevation would be his degradation. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him by a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses, if one would return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They beat him. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiṭṭim. The next day, Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall, when Rebbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He said to him, why is the master not telling us words of instruction? He started clapping with one hand. He asked, does one clap with one? He answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing. He told him, I shall free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, tomorrow I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel [from Egypt], He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt, He and all His Court. He asked him, why did you say these things? He told him, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good.

HALAKHAH: “An Anointed Priest who sinned,” etc. Halakhah 2:“An Anointed Priest who was removed from his anointed status,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rebbi Mana said, it is written: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Greatness, so Aaron is in his greatness. Rebbi Abun said, it is written: Holy shall he be for you; if one could compare it, I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if an Anointed Priest sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. If you would say in a court of 23, his elevation would be his degradation. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, better if one did return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiţţim. Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall; Rebbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He said to him, why is the master not telling us words of instruction? He started clapping with one hand. He asked, does one clap with one? He answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing. He said, no. He told him, I shall free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel from Egypt, He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt in that night, not only He but all His Court. It is not written in this context “when Power went” but when Powers went. They asked him, why did you say these things? He told them, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good, etc., you remove the Eternal’s people, one removes him.