shammai

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure.

It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure.

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything, before he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is difficult about the House of Shammai! What is the difference between this and five sacks on a threshing floor? For five [separate] sacks on one threshing floor, can one not give heave and tithe from one for the other?

Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob showed a basket of palm leaves to a carpenter and redeemed following his opinion. Rebbi Yannai showed a quarter [qab] wheat to a wheat dealer and redeemed following his opinion. Rebbi Simon showed produce to Rebbi Ḥilqiah who asked him, by their true value? He answered, yes. Rebbi Ḥilqiah said in the name of Rebbi Simon, one does not redeem Second Tithe following the opinion of imbeciles. Rebbi Phineas showed produce to a grits-maker who asked him, by their true value? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon, one does not redeem following the opinion of imbeciles. Rebbi Shammai said, how much a person wants [to pay] on a clear noontime at the summer solstice when the bath master takes up his bunches, he brings coins and redeems. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as much as a person wants Friday afternoon from women braiders when he passes by, he brings coins and redeems. Rebbi Yudan bar Gadya said, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun left it lying until it got moldy and redeemed it immediately after the Sabbath.

MISHNAH: He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it. He who put aside a dupondius and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it would be worth an as, has to eat another half. He who put aside an as of Second Tithe eats for it 11 as and 1/100 of an as; the House of Shammai say, 10 in total, but the House of Hillel say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10.

The House of Shammai say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10. Bar Qappara stated, both for demay and for certain 11. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom taught what Bar Qappara had stated. The House of Shammai follows Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s.

The House of Shammai say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10. Bar Qappara stated, both for demay and for certain 11. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom taught what Bar Qappara had stated. The House of Shammai follows Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s.

MISHNAH: [Grapes from] a fourth-year vineyard have to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. What is this? Eilat from the South, Aqrabeh from the North, Lydda from the West, the Jordan from the East. When the fruits increased they decreed that they might be redeemed [even] close to the city wall. There was a condition made that anytime they decided, they could return to the previous situation. Rebbi Yose says, this condition was introduced when the Temple was destroyed, viz., that one would return to the previous situation if the Temple would be rebuilt soon, in our days. A fourth-year vineyard, the House of Shammai say, is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

MISHNAH: [Grapes from] a fourth-year vineyard have to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. What is this? Eilat from the South, Aqrabeh from the North, Lydda from the West, the Jordan from the East. When the fruits increased they decreed that they might be redeemed [even] close to the city wall. There was a condition made that anytime they decided, they could return to the previous situation. Rebbi Yose says, this condition was introduced when the Temple was destroyed, viz., that one would return to the previous situation if the Temple would be rebuilt soon, in our days. A fourth-year vineyard, the House of Shammai say, is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only for the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only for the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth-year orchard from Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

There we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.

There we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.

Samuel bar Abba asked: Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, since there is no Second Tithe, there should not be any fourth-year orchard. Rebbi Yose said, even though there is no Second Tithe in the third and sixth years, there are the tithes. In the Sabbatical year, there are no tithes at all.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not give. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; just as you say that Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not give. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; just as you say that Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes.

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does he who declares it obligated for single berries also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.

MISHNAH: How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma. In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value. If all of it was abandoned, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift. The removal was on the day before the first day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients, First Tithe to its recipients, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed. He who had produce in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

MISHNAH: How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma. In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value. If all of it was abandoned, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift. The removal was on the day before the first day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients, First Tithe to its recipients, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed. He who had produce in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

Everybody agrees that bread and oil have to be removed, wine and spices are as if removed. Where do they disagree: A cooked dish the House of Shammai says one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say one does not have to remove.

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25): “Bundle” only “the money in your hand.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Even if he exchanges, what good does it do?

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, to sell on the market obligated.

Come and look: If it is completely parboiled, the House of Shammai obligate, not completely parboiled, the House of Shammai exempt? Rebbi Assi in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two students stated this. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For this matter I went to the elder Rebbi Hoshaia to Caesarea and he said to me, two students stated this.

Come and look: If it is completely parboiled, the House of Shammai obligate, not completely parboiled, the House of Shammai exempt? Rebbi Assi in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two students stated this. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For this matter I went to the elder Rebbi Hoshaia to Caesarea and he said to me, two students stated this.

This means that biting is biblical. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hilfai, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The House of Shammai made it as if swollen.

There, we have stated: “Dyers’ water disables a miqweh by three log but not by a change in color.” Abba, the son of Rav Naḥman, said, the words of Rebbi Meïr because it is visibly drawn. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: Rebbi Meïr’s parallels that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say because of souring it makes sour, so Rebbi Meïr says because it is visibly drawn.

There, we have stated: “Dyers’ water disables a miqweh by three log but not by a change in color.” Abba, the son of Rav Naḥman, said, the words of Rebbi Meïr because it is visibly drawn. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: Rebbi Meïr’s parallels that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say because of souring it makes sour, so Rebbi Meïr says because it is visibly drawn.

MISHNAH: Spices, two or three names from one kind, or [one name for] three are forbidden and combine. Rebbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine. Yoezer from Bira was one of Shammai’s students. He said, I asked Rabban Gamliel I when he was standing at the Eastern gate and he said, it does not make forbidden unless it alone could make it sour.

“It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked a citron and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel.” Why about a citron and not about any tree? It was stated “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But are Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not from the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Šebaṭ of the second year and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the second tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what? Is that not a Mishnah, “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There, why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, a Pharisee sufferer from gonorrhea may not eat with a vulgar sufferer from gonorrhea, but the House of Hillel permit it.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? This one suffers from gonorrhea and that one suffers from gonorrhea. But what is the reason of the House of Shammai? If he gets used to him during the days of his impurity he will remain used to him in the days of his purity. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya commanded Rav, if you are able to eat profane food in purity the entire year long, eat it. But if not, eat it seven days per year.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, a Pharisee sufferer from gonorrhea may not eat with a vulgar sufferer from gonorrhea, but the House of Hillel permit it.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? This one suffers from gonorrhea and that one suffers from gonorrhea. But what is the reason of the House of Shammai? If he gets used to him during the days of his impurity he will remain used to him in the days of his purity. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya commanded Rav, if you are able to eat profane food in purity the entire year long, eat it. But if not, eat it seven days per year.

MISHNAH: These are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon, when they came to visit him. They voted and the House of Shammai had the majority over the House of Hillel; eighteen items they decided on that day.

Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: The students of the House of Shammai were standing downstairs and killing the students of the House of Hillel. It was stated, six of them went up; the rest were standing around them with swords and lances.

And about the rules for the land of Gentiles. But did not Rebbi Zeˋira bar Abinna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Joseph ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity of the land of Gentiles and of glass vessels; Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetaḥ decreed impurity of metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed about purity of hands. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi: so practice had been in their hands but they forgot it. The secondary [authorities] came and agreed with the intent of the first ones. To teach you that everything for which the Court made a real effort will in the end be confirmed for them as it was said to Moses on Sinai. This comes as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty matter for you, if it is an empty matter, it is from you since you do not exert yourselves for it. For it is your life. When is it your life? Any time you are exerting yourselves for it.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch, unless they will be soaked when it still is daylight; but the House of Hillel permit it.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer; the House of Hillel put a question to the House of Shammai which they could not answer. “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, do you not agree with us that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, each drop already was dislocated; here what can you say?

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer; the House of Hillel put a question to the House of Shammai which they could not answer. “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, do you not agree with us that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, each drop already was dislocated; here what can you say?

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer; the House of Hillel put a question to the House of Shammai which they could not answer. “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, do you not agree with us that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, each drop already was dislocated; here what can you say?

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer. “The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, do you not agree with us that one does not roast meat, or onions, or an egg, unless they be completely roasted when it is still daylight? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, onion, meat, or egg, usually are flipped; here, what can you say? Rebbi Yudan said, if they were roasted like Ben Derosai’s food. They forbade something which usually is flipped unless it be completely roasted as long as it is still day. Rebbi Mana said, it is not reasonable that it should be permitted. For they can say to them, how can you respond to us with something which ordinarily is completely roasted when it still is day about something which ordinarily cannot be completely soaked when it still is day?

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer. “The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, do you not agree with us that one does not roast meat, or onions, or an egg, unless they be completely roasted when it is still daylight? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, onion, meat, or egg, usually are flipped; here, what can you say? Rebbi Yudan said, if they were roasted like Ben Derosai’s food. They forbade something which usually is flipped unless it be completely roasted as long as it is still day. Rebbi Mana said, it is not reasonable that it should be permitted. For they can say to them, how can you respond to us with something which ordinarily is completely roasted when it still is day about something which ordinarily cannot be completely soaked when it still is day?

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven unless they are steamed when it is still daylight, nor wool into a vat unless it may absorb the dye, but the House of Hillel permit it.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven,” etc. What profit does he have? Rebbi Abbahu said, for example these villagers who do not care.Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the vat was taken off. But if the vat was fixed, it is forbidden, since he will be afraid that his dye will have been absorbed and he will add water. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: The House of Hillel learn permitted work from forbidden work. Would it not be forbidden if he did it on the Sabbath? When he did similarly as long as it is still daytime it is permitted.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not set traps for wild animals, or birds, or fish unless they may be caught when it is still daylight, but the House of Hillel permit it.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does set traps for wild animals, or birds, of fish,” etc. Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was day. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was day. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish”. Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found.

MISHNAH: They House of Shammai say, one does not sell to a Non-Jew, nor put a load on him unless he may reach a nearby destination, but the House of Hillel permit it.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “They House of Shammai say, one sells to a Non-Jew,” etc. What means “a nearby destination”? It should be as Samuel said, for example as from Ḥuṭra to Nahardea; here it is the same. Some want to say, until he reaches his home. But some want to say, until he reaches his town. Rebbi Aqiba says, that he leaves the place of the door when the day becomes holy around him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Yose: But Rebbi Aqiba comes to determine following the words of the House of Hillel. One does not give to a Gentile on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere. One does not give to a dog on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere.

One sends letters through a Gentile neither on Friday nor on Thursday. The House of Shammai forbid even on Wednesday but the House of Hillel permit. They said about Rebbi Jose the Cohen that his handwriting never was found in the hand of a Gentile.

One embarks on the ocean neither on Friday nor on Thursday. The House of Shammai forbid even on Wednesday but the House of Hillel permit. If it is not dangerous, as from Tyre to Sidon, it is permitted.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not give hides to the tannery worker nor clothing to the Non-Jewish washer unless the work may be done when it is still daylight. In all cases, the House of Hillel permit as long as the sun still shines. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, my father’s house used to give their white garments to a Non-Jewish washer three days before the Sabbath. They both agree that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because the fire is [not] drawn after it and he forgets and removes the wick; and in addition because the fire was not kindled on most of the fuel. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, does this mean that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel? There came Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel. The colleagues objected, is there not wax where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, is there not a lantern where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah say in the name of Rav: Four pyres are in a minimal amount. A pyre of pressed-out olives, a pyre of manure, a pyre of fat, a pyre of pits are in a minimal amount. Also from the following, that Rebbi Taḥlifa asked Rav Ḥisda, did not the rabbi teach us, on a Sabbath which happened during Ḥanukkah, when it is forbidden to check a coin in the Ḥanukkah light; there he will not forget and remove the wick. Therefore the reason can only be that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel.

A woman after her period who was immersed by accident, Shammai in the name of Rav: she is pure for her house but impure for purities. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, she is impure both for her house and purities. What is the reason? It should be washed a second time and will be pure. Since the first time it was intentionally, also the second time it must be intentionally. And from where that the first time it was intentionally? The Cohen has to order that they should wash. Intentionally.

MISHNAH: If a cooking stove was heated with straw or stubbles one may put a dish on it, with olive cake or wood he should not put it on unless he emptied or covered it with ashes. The House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish, but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. The House of Shammai say one takes away but may not return it but the House of Hillel say one even may return.

MISHNAH: If a cooking stove was heated with straw or stubbles one may put a dish on it, with olive cake or wood he should not put it on unless he emptied or covered it with ashes. The House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish, but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. The House of Shammai say one takes away but may not return it but the House of Hillel say one even may return.

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “If an oven was heated with straw or stubbles,” etc. Bar Qappara stated: It is even forbidden to lean against it. Rebbi Shammai leaned against the air space of the oven. Rebbi Mana told him, did not Bar Qapprara state: It is even forbidden to lean against it?

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

It is forbidden to store away in anything which one has to distance from a wall. Rebbi Yose said, since we have stated that one may store away in straw, it follows that one need not distance it from a wall. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected: Was it not stated, one who rents o house from his neighbor may not use it as storage for produce? Why? Not because of the chaff? Rebbi Ḥanania said, because of the rats. Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, if it were because of the rats then even a storage for anything. Rebbi Shammai objected, does one not distance rocks from the wall? Then rocks are forbidden to hide away in. Rebbi Yose said, it is not that rocks produce heat but they become rusty and destroy the bottom of the wall. But was it not stated: One does not store away in stones. Explain it for silver ore. There are Tannaim who state, one does store in rocks, and there are Tannaim who state, one does not store. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says “one stores”, with gold or brass ore; he who says “one does not store”, with silver ore.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah. “A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. Samuel said, if it was tied to it from before the Sabbath. Ḥanin from Gophtia said before Samuel, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi does not act like this. He told him, Rav uses kleisterin, as it was stated: rams go out with kleisterin. Rebbi Aḥa bar Papa objected before Rebbi Zeˋira: But was it not stated: a rope tied to a cow may be tied to the feeding trough, the feeding trough may be tied to a cow. One understands a cow’s may be tied to the feeding trough. May from the feeding trough be tied to a cow? Would he not use the animal’s sides on the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, explain it for knots which are not permanent. Rebbi Yose said, is there a difference for sides of an animal whether the knot is permanent or not permanent? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it if he connects rope to rope.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath.

Rav Hamnuna said, on a board outside the ship which is not four wide one may sit and provide for his needs on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he had said an open box it would have been correct. Rebbi Abun said, one who wants to provide for a boat makes outside of three [hand-breadths] a plank which is not four [hand-breadths] wide and one considers it as if partitions rose. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Because any three [hand-breadths] which are close to a partition are as if of the partition. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar commanded Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, who was a mariner, to make for himself a deficient container.

He who hollows out cliffs, cavities, pillars, millstones, or splits mosaic stones, splits blocks, is liable because of chiseling. One who puts together a Galilean bed is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋura said, he only is like one who takes a brick and puts it on bricks on the Sabbath. Rav Hamnuna instructed the Head of the Captivity to disassemble a composite table on the Sabbath. He said, Rav Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya was with him. Rav Jehudah heard it and said, the one who instructed him did not study or serve. Rebbi Shammai said, the one who instructed him instructed following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: Planking of a ship, or of a crib, and the posts of a bed, and the leg of a table, and the handle on the top of a knife one shall not return but if one returned he is not liable. But if one pushed in he is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if they were loose he removes and returns. It was stated: “Stuck together they are a connection for impurity and sprinkling; nailed together they are a connection for impurity but not for sprinkling. Those which may be taken apart and put together again are connections neither for impurity nor for sprinkling.” And here, you are saying so? There normally they are fixed; if not fixed there is no connection. But here sticking together is the end of its manufacture.

HALAKHAH: 7. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one feed them? It comes following what we have stated there: “one does not provide water to bees and to pigeons in a dovecot,” for one cannot provide for something which is not prepared. And here it is the same.

Rebbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one tie it with a rope? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.

Rebbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one tie it with a rope? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah who said, “they may be taken only for a need.” Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. One said, for a need, for a need of itself; not for a need, not for a need of itself. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself. But the other said, for a need, for a need of itself or of its place; not for a need, not for a need of itself or of its place. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself or of its place. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one moves full [containers] for no need and about empty [containers] which he intended to fill. Where did they disagree? About those which he has no intention to fill, where the House of Shammai prohibit and the House of Hillel permit. Does the House of Shammai come to parallel Rebbi Nehemiah? You say, practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah, but practice does not follow the House of Shammai.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah who said, “they may be taken only for a need.” Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. One said, for a need, for a need of itself; not for a need, not for a need of itself. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself. But the other said, for a need, for a need of itself or of its place; not for a need, not for a need of itself or of its place. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself or of its place. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one moves full [containers] for no need and about empty [containers] which he intended to fill. Where did they disagree? About those which he has no intention to fill, where the House of Shammai prohibit and the House of Hillel permit. Does the House of Shammai come to parallel Rebbi Nehemiah? You say, practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah, but practice does not follow the House of Shammai.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah who said, “they may be taken only for a need.” Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. One said, for a need, for a need of itself; not for a need, not for a need of itself. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself. But the other said, for a need, for a need of itself or of its place; not for a need, not for a need of itself or of its place. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself or of its place. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one moves full [containers] for no need and about empty [containers] which he intended to fill. Where did they disagree? About those which he has no intention to fill, where the House of Shammai prohibit and the House of Hillel permit. Does the House of Shammai come to parallel Rebbi Nehemiah? You say, practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah, but practice does not follow the House of Shammai.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah who said, “they may be taken only for a need.” Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. One said, for a need, for a need of itself; not for a need, not for a need of itself. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself. But the other said, for a need, for a need of itself or of its place; not for a need, not for a need of itself or of its place. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself or of its place. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one moves full [containers] for no need and about empty [containers] which he intended to fill. Where did they disagree? About those which he has no intention to fill, where the House of Shammai prohibit and the House of Hillel permit. Does the House of Shammai come to parallel Rebbi Nehemiah? You say, practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah, but practice does not follow the House of Shammai.

“The drawn should not circumcise lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised convert. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised; because that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Since we have stated that it is a compressed prepuce, it is implied that he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A son was born to Rav Ada bar Ahava in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, testicles became injured and he fasted for him; he died. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him; he died.

“The drawn should not circumcise lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised convert. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised; because that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Since we have stated that it is a compressed prepuce, it is implied that he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A son was born to Rav Ada bar Ahava in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, testicles became injured and he fasted for him; he died. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him; he died.

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

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if an alley has two entrances, he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Levi: Practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Abba said, only if he put up a stick and a doubly pointed stake; but if he made a plank four hand-breadths wide, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated thus: If an alley has four entrances, he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rebbi Yose said, only if he does it for a middle one. But if he put it on an outer one could it be that what is standing here would permit what is open there? What would permit that which is open there? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it that it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and you cannot infer anything.

Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, the House of Shammai say, a door on each side. When he enters he closes and locks. But the House of Hillel say, a door on one side and a door frame on the other side. Samuel said, practice follows Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother. Is that not the same as the earlier statement? Rebbi Abba said, if there is a door it can be locked. Rebbi Aḥa instructed one who made a door frame that he had to make it inside of four cubits. Rebbi Aybun instructed in this sense.

MISHNAH: The legitimization of an alley: the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam; Rebbi Eliezer says, two laths. A student said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Ismael that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree about an alley which is less that four [cubits wide] that it is [permitted] either by lath or by beam; about what did they disagree? About one wider than four [cubits] up to ten where the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam. Rebbi Aqiba said, they disagree in both cases.

MISHNAH: The legitimization of an alley: the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam; Rebbi Eliezer says, two laths. A student said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Ismael that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree about an alley which is less that four [cubits wide] that it is [permitted] either by lath or by beam; about what did they disagree? About one wider than four [cubits] up to ten where the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam. Rebbi Aqiba said, they disagree in both cases.

MISHNAH: The legitimization of an alley: the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam; Rebbi Eliezer says, two laths. A student said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Ismael that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree about an alley which is less that four [cubits wide] that it is [permitted] either by lath or by beam; about what did they disagree? About one wider than four [cubits] up to ten where the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam. Rebbi Aqiba said, they disagree in both cases.

HALAKHAH: “The legitimization of an alley,” etc. What laths? Two laths and beam following the House of Shammai? Laths but no beam following the House of Hillel? Three [hand-breadths wide] following Rebbi Yose? Arbitrarily small following the rabbis? Let us hear from the following: “It happened that Rebbi Eliezer went to his student Rebbi Yose ben Perora at Oblin. He showed him an alley where there was only one lath. He told him, make it two laths. He said to him, what? Are you telling me to close it off? He told him, let it be closed; there is an argument for the domains of the Sabbath in this respect?” This implies three following Rebbi Yose. If you would say, arbitrarily small following the rabbis, does arbitrarily small close off?

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

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

“And also I heard from him that if one of the dwellers in a courtyard had forgotten to make an eruv he is forbidden [to bring into] his house.” There it follows the rabbis, here Rebbi Eliezer. The rabbis say, a person may annul his right to his house but not his right to his courtyard. Rebbi Eliezer says, just as a person may annul his right to his house so he may annul his right to his courtyard. According to Rebbi Eliezer, could he not be treated like a guest and be permitted? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer fined him. Rebbi Shammai asked, according to Rebbi Eliezer, does one fine anybody in error about a matter of their words? Rebbi Abba the son of Rav Pappai asked, if somebody said, I am annulling the right to my house, would the rabbis agree? If somebody said, I am annulling the right to my courtyard, would Rebbi Eliezer agree?

“One may make an eruv for a nazir with wine” for another person may drink it. “And for an Israel with heave,” for a Cohen may eat it. For a Cohen in a bet happeras? The Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, for the House of Shammai say that one may not make an eruv for a person unless his personal vessels may be there. Symmachos follows the House of Shammai as we have stated: “Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a bet happeras.” Then also between the graves? He might transgress a rabbinic prohibition and eat there. For he could enter on a bench, in a box or a chest, make a hole less than a hand-breadth [wide], stick a spindle or a splinter into it, and eat it.