shimon

If one scraped mud to the sides and then three logs [of water] were drawn out from it [from the mud], [the mikveh is still] valid. But if removed the mud away and three logs were drawn from it [into the mikveh] it becomes invalid. Rabbi Shimon pronounces it valid, since there was no intention to draw [the water].

A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. Of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure.

Mikvaot can be joined together [if their connection is as big] as the tube of a water-skin in thickness and in space, in which two fingers can be fully turned round. If there is a doubt [whether it is as big] as the tube of a water skin or not, it is invalid, because [this is a mitzvah] from the Torah. The same applies also to the olive's bulk of a corpse and the olive's bulk of carrion and the lentil's bulk of a sheretz. Anything which remains in [the space measuring] the tube of a water-skin lessens [its measure]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if it is any water creature whatsoever, [the mikvaot] remain clean.

If a menstruant placed coins in her mouth and went down and immersed herself, she becomes clean from her [former] uncleanness, but she becomes unclean on account of her spittle. If she put her hair in her mouth or closed her hand or pressed her lips tightly, it is as though she had not immersed herself. If a person held on to another man or to vessels and immersed them, they remain unclean; but if he had washed his hand before in the water, they become clean. Rabbi Shimon says: he should hold them loosely that water may enter into them. The hidden or wrinkled parts of the body do not need that water should enter into them.

In the case of vessels the following block: pitch and myrrh; In the case of glass vessels, whether inside or outside; On a table or on a board or on a couch; On those that are [usually] kept clean they block; On those that are allowed to remain dirty they do not block. They block in the case of beds belonging to householders, but they do not block on beds belonging to a poor person. They block on the saddle of a house-holder, but they do not block on the saddle of a dealer in water-skins. They block in the case of a pack-saddle. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [only if the stain is as big] as an Italian issar.

If she aborted a sandal or a placenta she sits in uncleanness for both male and female. If a placenta is in a house, the house is unclean, not because a placenta is a fetus but because generally there can be no placenta without a fetus. Rabbi Shimon says: the child might have been mashed before it came out.

How long can protracted labor [be considered] as lasting? Rabbi Meir says: even forty or fifty days. Rabbi Judah say: the [ninth] month suffices for her. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon says: protracted labor is not for more than two weeks [before birth].

For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth. All women are subject to uncleanness [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, "her discharge being blood in her body" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge came out of the body.

If a dead sheretz was found in an alley it causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, "I examined this alley and there was no sheretz in it," or to such time as it was last swept. So also a bloodstain found on a garment causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, "I examined this shirt and there was no stain on it" or to such time as it was last washed. And it conveys uncleanness whether it is wet or dry. Rabbi Shimon says: if it is dry it causes uncleanness retrospectively, but if it is wet it causes uncleanness only to a time when it could still have been wet.

A man and a woman did their needs in the same bowl and blood was found on the water: Rabbi Yose says it is clean, Rabbi Shimon says that it was unclean, since it is not usual for a man to discharge blood, but nevertheless the presumption is that blood is from the woman.

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

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

If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist. If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way].

If one bent down to drink, the water which came up on his mouth or on his moustache comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But [what came up] on his nose or on his head or on his beard does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one drew water with a jar, the water which came up on its outside, or on the rope which was wound round its neck, or on the rope which was needed for its use, comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. How much rope is needed for its use? Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: a handbreadth. If he put the jar under the rain-pipe, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.

If [unclean] liquids fell upon wood and rain came down upon it and [the rain water] exceeded [the liquids] in quantity, they are clean. If he took [the wood out] so that rain would come down upon it, they are unclean even though [the rain water] exceeded in quantity. If [the wood] had absorbed unclean liquids, even if he took the wood outside in order that rain should come down upon it, it is clean. But one may not light the wood in an oven except with clean hands. Rabbi Shimon says: if the wood was moist and then he lit it, and the liquids that came out of it exceeded in quantity the liquids which it had absorbed, they become clean.

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

One who pours hot water into hot water, or cold water into cold water, or hot water [poured] into cold water remains clean; But from cold water into hot water, the [cold water] becomes unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: even in the case of hot water poured into hot water it becomes unclean if the strength of the heat of the lower [water] is greater than that of the upper [water].

Derivatives of water are: the liquids that come from the eye, from the ear, from the nose and from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of children, whether [its flow is] conscious or unconscious. Derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are clean, and blood from bloodletting for drinking. Whey is like milk, And the sap of olives is deemed like oil, since it is never free from oil, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: even though it contains no oil. The blood of a sheretz is like its flesh, it causes uncleanness but does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness, and there is nothing else like it.

The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean.

The following cause neither uncleanness nor susceptibility to uncleanness: Sweat, rotten secretion, excrement, blood issuing with any of these, liquid [issuing from a child born in the] eight month. Rabbi Yose says: except its blood. [The discharge from the bowels of] one who drinks the water of Tiberias even though it comes out clean. Blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are unclean, and blood from bloodletting for healing. Rabbi Eliezer declares these unclean. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: the milk of a male is clean.

A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired. Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired. They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean? He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean. They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean. He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end? Thus far was the argument. Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired. But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage.

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

If he knocked against a door, doorbolt, lock, oar, mill basket, or against a weak tree, or weak branch of a strong tree, or against an Egyptian ladder unsecured by nails, or against a bridge, beam or door, not made secure with clay, they become unclean. [If he knocked] against a chest, box or cupboard, they become unclean. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon declare them clean in these cases.

A zav who lays across five benches, or five money-belts: If lengthwise, he [makes them] unclean; But breadthwise, they are clean. If he slept [on them], and it was doubtful that he had turned over onto them, they are unclean. If he was lying on six seats, with two hands on two [seats], two feet on another two, his head on one, with his body on another one, only that one on which his body lay is rendered unclean. If [a zav] stood on two seats: Rabbi Shimon says: if these were distant one from the other, they remain clean.

Ten cloaks one on top of the other, if he sat on the uppermost one, all are unclean. A zav who was on one scale of a balance and in the other scale opposite there were objects fit to sit or lie upon: If the zav pushed them up, they are clean. But if they pushed him up, they are unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: if there was one object it becomes unclean, but if there were many they remain clean, since none of them had borne the greater part [of the zav's weight].

If he sat on a bed and there were four cloaks under the four legs of the bed, all become unclean, since the bed cannot stand on three legs; But Rabbi Shimon declares them clean. If he rode on a beast and there were four cloaks under the legs of the beast, they are clean, since the beast can stand upon three legs. If there was one cloak under its two forelegs or its two hindlegs, or under a foreleg and a hindleg, it becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose says: a horse conveys uncleanness through its hindlegs and a donkey through its forelegs, since a horse leans upon its hindlegs and a donkey upon its forelegs. If he sat on a beam of an olive-press, the vessels in the olive-press receptacle are unclean. [If he sat] on a clothing press, the garments beneath it are clean. Rabbi Nehemiah declares them unclean.

If part of an unclean person rests upon a clean person, or part of a clean person upon an unclean person, or if things connected to an unclean person [rest] upon a clean person, or if things connected to a clean person upon one unclean, he becomes unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: if part of an unclean person is upon a clean person, he is unclean; but if part of a clean person is upon one that is unclean, he is clean.

If an unclean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, or a clean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, it becomes unclean. If part of an unclean person rests on an object fit to lie upon, or part of a clean person rests upon an object fit to lie upon, it remains clean. Thus we find that impurity enters it and goes out of it by its lesser part. Similarly, if a loaf of terumah was placed upon an object fit to lie upon [that was unclean] and there paper in between, whether it was above or below, it remains clean. Similarly, in the case of a stone with scale disease it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon pronounced such a case unclean.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Originally they said: one may redeem [second tithe] for the produce of an am ha-arez. Later they reconsidered and said: also for money of his. Originally they said that if a man was being led out to execution and said, “Write a get for my wife”, they may write a get and give [it to her]. Later they reconsidered and said, even if he were leaving on a sea voyage or on a caravan journey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if he were dangerously ill.

If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: "Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely," [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled, but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity. If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah. How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions? Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern. Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.

Water which had become so unfit that it could not be drunk by a beast: If it was in a vessel it is invalid, But if it was in the ground it is valid. If there fell into [the water], dye, or gum or sulphate of copper and its color changed, it is invalid. If a person did any work with it or soaked his bread in it, it is invalid. Shimon of Teman says: even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell into another water the water is valid.

If he poured the first water over his hands [while standing] in one place, and the second water over his hands [while standing] in another place, and a loaf of terumah fell on the first water, the loaf becomes unclean. But if it fell on the second water it remains clean. If he poured the first and the second water [while standing] in one place, and a loaf of terumah fell onto the water, the loaf becomes unclean. If he poured the first water over his hands and a splinter or a piece of gravel is found on his hands, [his hands] remain unclean, because the latter water only makes the first water on the hands clean. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if any creature from the water [was on the hands while they are being cleaned] they are clean.

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

The straps of the tefillin [when connected] with the tefillin [boxes] defile the hands. Rabbi Shimon says: the straps of the tefillin do not defile the hands.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.

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

A cucumber planted in a pot which grew until it was out of the pot is pure. Rabbi Shimon said: what is its nature to make it clean? Rather, that which has already become unclean remains unclean, and only that which is pure can be eaten.

That which has been severed from a human, beast, wild animal, bird, or from the carrion of an unclean bird, and the fat in villages. And all kinds of wild vegetables, except for truffles and mushrooms; Rabbi Judah says, except for field-leeks, purslane and ornithagolum. And Rabbi Shimon says: except for cynara sycaria. Rabbi Yose says: except for muscari comusum. Behold all these need both intention and to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness].

The carrion of an unclean beast at all places, and of a clean bird in villages, need intention but do not need to be rendered susceptible. The carrion of a clean beast in all places, and that of a clean bird and also fat in the market places, require neither intention nor to be rendered susceptible. Rabbi Shimon says: also [the carrion of] the camel, rabbit, hare or pig.

The aneth stalk after having given its taste to a dish is no longer subject to the laws of terumah, and also no longer imparts food uncleanness. The young sprouts of hawthorn, of lapidum, or leaves of the wild arum, do not impart food uncleanness until they are sweetened. Rabbi Shimon says: also [the leaves of] the colocynth are like them.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the world to come the Holy One, Blessed be He, will make each righteous person inherit three hundred and ten worlds, for it is written: "That I may cause those that love me to inherit yesh (numerical value of; and that I may fill their treasuries" (Proverbs 8:21. Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta said: the Holy One, Blessed be He, found no vessel that could contain blessing for Israel save that of peace, as it is written: "The Lord will give strength unto his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace" (Psalms 29:11).

Our rabbis taught: Two [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions, and the third [may be] even one handbreadth. Rabbi Shimon says: Three walls must be of the prescribed dimensions, and the fourth [may be] even one handbreadth

What principle are they arguing about?... The rabbis hold that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, while R. Shimon holds that the traditional reading is authoritative.

R. Shimon holds that the traditional reading is authoritative’. The word Sukkoth is read three times, which equals six [references]. Deduct one Scriptural reference for the law itself and four remain; three walls at least of prescribed dimensions, and tradition came and diminished the [prescribed minimum of the] fourth and reduced it to a handbreadth.

R. Matanah said: The reason of R. Shimon is a derivation from the following verse: "And there shall be a Sukkah for shade during the day from the heat, and for a refuge and for a cover from storm and from rain" (Isaiah 4:6).

Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Josiah, R. Judah, R. Shimon, R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Eliezer and ‘others’ -all hold the opinion that the Sukkah must be constructed like a permanent abode.

‘R. Shimon? — As it has been taught: Two [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions and the third [may be] even one handbreadth. ‘R. Shimon said: Three [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions and the fourth [may be] even one handbreadth.

‘R. Shimon? — As it has been taught: Two [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions and the third [may be] even one handbreadth. ‘R. Shimon said: Three [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions and the fourth [may be] even one handbreadth.

Can we say that [their dispute matches the dispute of] the following tannaim?: If one transgressed and plucked them, [the hadas is] invalid, the words of R. Shimon b. Yehozadak. But the Sages declare it valid.

What is this [comparison]? One can understand there the reason of R. Yose, that [the stalks] have a use according to R. Shimon ben Lakish, as R. Shimon b. Lakish said, Since one can [the more easily] turn them with the pitchfork. But in this case, what use do they have?

What is this [comparison]? One can understand there the reason of R. Yose, that [the stalks] have a use according to R. Shimon ben Lakish, as R. Shimon b. Lakish said, Since one can [the more easily] turn them with the pitchfork. But in this case, what use do they have?

One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.

We learned there A cistern between two courtyards—they do not fill up from it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, whether above, below or from its rim. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:

In that case the reason has been given, as Rabbi Shimon said: "What is the reason? Since they are susceptible to uncleanliness if [a zav] sits on them, as we have learned: if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’.

if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of R. Yannai said, it can be used as a patch for [the saddle of] a donkey.

What is meant by "hotzlot"? R. Abdimi b. Hamduri said marzublei. What is marzublei? R. Abba said, Bags filled with foliage. R. Shimon b. Lakish said: Real mats

Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

But does not R. Shimon also say that a Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and yet [he holds that] a temporary tent does annul a permanent tent? It is in this that they differ One Master holds that a temporary tent can come and annul a permanent tent, while the other Master holds that a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent tent.

R. Shimon said: It happened that Tabi the slave etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon said: From the casual conversation of R. Gamaliel we have learned two things. We learned that slaves are free from the obligation of Sukkah, and we learned that he who sleeps under a bed [in a Sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation.

R. Shimon said: It happened that Tabi the slave etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon said: From the casual conversation of R. Gamaliel we have learned two things. We learned that slaves are free from the obligation of Sukkah, and we learned that he who sleeps under a bed [in a Sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation.

a) Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel ruled,

a) Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said, if they can support a half-brick in its length of three handbreadths, it is not necessary to bring another beam; if not, it is necessary to bring another beam.

R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Shimon forbid it

Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah]. Our Rabbis taught, The sick one spoken of here is not [only] one who sick and is in danger, but also one who is sick but not in danger, even one who has a pain in his eye or a pain in his head. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said: On one occasion I had a pain in my eye in Caesarea and R. Yose Berebi permitted me and my attendants to sleep outside the Sukkah.

R. Yohanan answered in the name of R. Shimon b. Yehozadak: It was stated with regard to Sukkot, "The fifteenth," and it was stated with regard to the Festival of Matzot, "The fifteenth." Just as there the first night only is obligatory but from then on it is optional, so too here the first night is obligatory, but from then on it is optional. And from where do we know [that the first night of Pesah it is obligatory to eat matzah]?

A minor who is not dependent on his mother etc. What is meant by a minor who is not dependent on his mother? The school of R. Yannai said, Any child who when he relieves himself, his mother does not need to clean him. Rabbi Shimon b. Lakish said: He who wakes up and does not call his mother. But do not older ones also call their mother? Rather he who awakes from his sleep and does not call "Mother! Mother."

Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of Yochai,

And Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of Yochai, "What does the verse, 'For I am G-d, loving of justice, hating of thievery greatly (Isaiah 61:8)' mean? It is compared to an allegory of a flesh-and-blood king, who was passing by a tollbooth and said to his servants, 'Give the tax to the collectors.' They said to him, 'And is not the whole tax yours?' He said to them, 'From me should all the travelers learn, and not distance themselves from the tax.' So too the Holy One, Blessed be he, says, 'I am G-d, hater of thievery in elevation-offerings- from Me should all my children learn and distance themselves from thievery.'"

Our Rabbis taught: One may not reduce [the number of berries] on the Festival. In the name of R. Eliezer son of R. Shimon they said that one may reduce. But is he not fixing an object on the Festival?

R. Ashi said: This is a case where he plucked them for food, and R. Eliezer son of R. Shimon holds the same opinion as his father who said that a work which is done without intention is permitted. But do not both Abaye and Raba say that

R. Shimon admits in the case of "If his head is cut off will he not die" [that it is forbidden]?

A half-ripe etrog: R. Akiva declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid. Rabbah said: Both R. Akiva and R. Shimon said the same thing. R. Akiva [refers to] that which we just said. R. Shimon—to what does that refer? To that which we have taught: R. Shimon declares etrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small.

A half-ripe etrog: R. Akiva declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid. Rabbah said: Both R. Akiva and R. Shimon said the same thing. R. Akiva [refers to] that which we just said. R. Shimon—to what does that refer? To that which we have taught: R. Shimon declares etrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small.

A half-ripe etrog: R. Akiva declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid. Rabbah said: Both R. Akiva and R. Shimon said the same thing. R. Akiva [refers to] that which we just said. R. Shimon—to what does that refer? To that which we have taught: R. Shimon declares etrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small.

Alternatively, R. Shimon may have stated his view only there, since it is written, "You shall surely tithe all the increase of your seed" (Deuteronomy 14:22) that which people bring out for seed, but here he might agree with the Rabbis.

It was also stated: R. Shimon bar Pazzi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who said in the name of Bar Kappara: From where do we know that one who listens is as though he responds? From what is written: "Even all the words of the book which the King of Judah has read" (II Kings 22:16). But was it Josiah that read them? Was it not, in fact Shaphan who read them, as it is written, "And Shaphan read it before the king" (II Kings 22:10). Rather from here [we learn] that one who listens is as though he responds.

“Bind the festival with myrtle branches up to the horns of the altar.” and R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon of Mahoz who said in the name of R. Yohanan of Makkut: Whoever makes an addition to the Festival by eating and drinking is regarded by Scripture as though he had built an altar and offered on it a sacrifice. For it is said, Make an addition to the Festival with fat cattle, even to the horns of the altar.

Hezekiah said in the name of R. Yirmiyah in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: For all of the commandments, one does not fulfil one’s obligation unless [the objects involved] are in the same condition as when they grow, for it is said, “Acacia wood standing up” (Exodus 26:15).

Hezekiah further stated in the name of R. Yirmiyah who said it in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: I am able to exempt the whole world from judgement from the day that I was born until now, and Eliezer, my son, were to be with me [we could exempt it] from the day of the creation of the world to the present time, and were Yotam the son of Uzziah with us, [we could exempt it] from the creation of the world to its final end.

Hezekiah further stated in the name of R. Yirmiyah who said it in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: I have seen the sons of heaven and they are but few. If there be a thousand, I and my son are among them; if a hundred, I and my son are among them; and if only two, they are I and my son. Are they then so few? Did not Rava say, There is a row of 18,000 righteous men before the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said, “It shall be eighteen thousand round about [and the name of the city from that day on shall be ‘The Lord Is There'” (Ezekiel 48:35)? This is no difficulty: The former number refers to those who see Him through a bright speculum, the latter to those who do not see him through a bright speculum.

evil all the day” (Genesis 6:5). R. Shimon b. Lakish stated: The Evil Inclination of a person grows in strength from day to day and seeks to kill him, as it is said, “The wicked watches the righteous and seeks to slay him” (Psalms 37:32); and were it not that the Holy One, blessed be He, is his help he would not be able to withstand it, as it is said, “The Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor suffer him to be condemned when he is judged” (Psalms 37:33).

“And the Lord showed me four craftsmen” (Zechariah 2:3). Who are these ‘four craftsmen’? R. Hana b. Bizna said in the name of R. Shimon Hasida: The Messiah the son of David, the Messiah the son of Joseph, Elijah and the Righteous Priest. R. Sheshet objected: If so, was it correct to write, “These are the horns which scattered Judah,” whereas these come to restore them.

It was taught: They said of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel that when he rejoiced at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, he used to take eight fire torches and throw them in the air and catch one and throw one and they did not touch one another; and when he prostrated himself, he used to dig his two thumbs in the ground, bend down, kiss the ground, and stand himself up again, a feat which no other man could do, and this is what is meant by Kidah.

When I was in the school of Rav in Babylon I used to say that which has been taught, "If Yom Kippur fell on the eve of Shabbat, they did not sound the trumpet, and if it fell at the conclusion of Shabbat they did not recite the Havdalah" is agreed to by all, but when I came up to Palestine I found R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi sitting and teaching that it was in agreement with R. Akiba only?

Is this so? But did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: It is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world, as it says, “They that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them” (Proverbs 28:4). Also it has been taught: R. Dostai b. Maton says: It is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world. And if one should whisper to you saying, “Do not contend with evildoers, neither be envious against those that do acts of unrighteousness,” one whose conscience smites him is saying this.

Whom does the Mishnah follow? Neither the First Tanna nor R. Eliezer son of R. Yose nor R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, as it has been taught: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was then intercalated they read in the second Adar, since all the mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar are performed in the first, except the reading of the Megillah.

R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Yose that it is to be read again in the second, because all mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar may not be performed in the first. They all however agree in regard to mourning and fasting, that they are forbidden on [the fourteenth and fifteenth of] both.

Does not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel here say the same thing as the First Tanna? R. Papa said: They differ on the question of the special portions: the First Tanna holds that these should ab initio be read in the second [Adar], but if they have been read in the first, it is sufficient, except for the reading of the Megillah, which even though it has been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second. R. Eliezer son of R. Yose

on the other hand held that even the Megillah may be read ab initio in the first [Adar]; And R. Shimon b. Gamaliel held that even the special portions, if they have been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second.

Which authority then [does our Mishnah follow]? If [you say] the First Tanna, there is the difficulty of gifts. If [you say] R. Eliezer son of R. Yose, there is the difficulty of the reading of the Megillah also. If [you say] R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, there is the difficulty of the series of special portions.

Or if you want, I can say that in fact it is R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, and there is an omission in our Mishnah and this is what it means: There is no difference between the fourteenth of the first Adar and the fourteenth of the second Adar except for reading the Megillah and gifts to the poor. From which we infer that in regard to mourning and fasting they are the same, but it doesn’t mention the special portions.

R. Yohanan said: Both of them [R. Shimon and R. Eliezer son of R. Yose] based their opinions on the same text, In every year.” R. Eliezer son of Yose reasoned: “In every year”; just as in most years Adar is next to Shevat, so too here Adar is next to Shevat. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel reasoned:

R. Yohanan said: Both of them [R. Shimon and R. Eliezer son of R. Yose] based their opinions on the same text, In every year.” R. Eliezer son of Yose reasoned: “In every year”; just as in most years Adar is next to Shevat, so too here Adar is next to Shevat. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel reasoned:

R. Eliezer, who holds that Purim is observed in Adar I makes sense for there is a principle that one should never pass up an opportunity to perform a mitzvah. But why would R. Shimon b. Gamaliel hold that Purim is delayed until Adar II.

R. Tabi says that R. Shimon b. Gamaliel wanted the redemption of Purim to be close to the redemption of Pesah. Therefore, they should be observed in adjacent months.

R. Elazar said: The reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel is from what is written: “To confirm this letter of Purim, the second” (Esther 9:29).

They objected: R. Meir says that Kohelet does not defile the hands, and that about the Song of Songs there is a dispute. R. Yose says that the Song of Songs defiles the hands, and about Koheleth there is a difference of opinion. R. Shimon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were lenient and Beth Hillel stringent, but Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther [certainly] make the hands unclean. Shmuel concurred with R. Joshua.

It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Menasia said: Koheleth does not defile the hands because it is Solomon’s wisdom. They said to him: Was this then all that he composed? Is it not stated elsewhere, “And he spoke three thousand proverbs,” (I Kings 5:12) and it further says, “Add not unto his words? (Proverbs 30:6).