somebody

Rebbi Mana made light of those ordained for money. Rebbi Ammi read for them (Ex. 20:19): “Do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” Rebbi Yoshia said, their prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Ashian said, if somebody is ordained for money, one does not get up before him and one does not address him as Rebbi; his prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis were sitting together when a person ordained for money was passing by. One of the rabbis said to Rebbi Zeïra, let us behave like Tannaïm and not get up before him.

It was stated: If somebody vows regarding his son to study Torah, he is permitted to fill for him an amphora of water and to light for him. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He also can buy things for him on the market. Do they differ? Here for a man, there for a woman. If he was a known personality they treated him as a woman. “ It happened that somebody vowed regarding his son to study Torah. The case came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta and he permitted him to fill an amphora of water and to light for him.”

It was stated: If somebody vows regarding his son to study Torah, he is permitted to fill for him an amphora of water and to light for him. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He also can buy things for him on the market. Do they differ? Here for a man, there for a woman. If he was a known personality they treated him as a woman. “ It happened that somebody vowed regarding his son to study Torah. The case came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta and he permitted him to fill an amphora of water and to light for him.”

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody was standing in the public domain, collected rain from the airspace of walls and carried it out, he is liable. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, it is so if he grabbed it, but if he collected it he is not liable. What is the difference between whether another person gave him or if Heaven gave? It follows Rebbi, for Rebbi made the airspace of walls like their substance.

“There are four kinds of domain on the Sabbath: Private domain, public domain, karmelit, and dead-end streets. What is private domain? A ditch ten deep and four wide, or a wall ten high and four wide; this is completely private domain. And what is completely public domain? A street, a wide road, desert, and passages open at both ends. One does not export from a private to a public domain nor import from a public to a private domain. If somebody exported or imported in error he is liable for a purification sacrifice; intentionally he is liable for extirpation or is stoned, whether he exports or imports, or lifts or throws. An ocean, or a valley, or a platform, or a threshold, or karmelit are neither public nor private domain; one does not carry there but if one carried he is not liable.”

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise, take either the very first or the very last [source]. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? Only in image a man wanders. It is written, many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust? That is Rebbi Zeˋira, as Rebbi Zeˋira said, we do not take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not roast meat, onions, or an egg, unless they be roasted when it still is daylight,” etc. Rebbi Bun bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis: A dish which is fully cooked one may leave on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: Meat, onion, and egg shrink and it is bad for them. This one is shrinking and it is good for it, and you say so? Maybe this was said only for hot water. Rebbi Samuel came, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: It is forbidden to leave hot water which was fully heated on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dish of beef which was cooked as Ben Derosai’s food one may return on a cooking stove covered with ashes. This comes like what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One warns somebody who puts a pot on top of coals. When it will be cooked as Ben Derosai’s food it is forbidden. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: Hot water which was fully heated one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: To leave on is forbidden but to return is permitted? Maybe it was only said for the Passover sacrifice. There Rebbi Aḥa in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: The Passover sacrifice which was fully roasted one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes.

It was stated: “A woman should not fill a pot with ˋassisiot and lupines and put them into the oven at the start of the Sabbath, at nightfall. If she did, they are forbidden after the end of the Sabbath until the time they could have been done.” Rebbi Aḥa said: intentionally, following Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said: unintentionally, following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Mana said, what my teacher Rebbi Yose said is correct: “He who is planting on the Sabbath, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. In the Sabbatical year, he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the other way around. If he was planting on the Sabbath he must tear it out whether it was unintentional or intentional; in the Sabbatical, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. Why? Because the profit of the Sabbath [is forbidden] to him.” And here, since you say that after the end of the Sabbath he has to wait until the time it could have been done, he did not gain anything from the Sabbath. What is the reason of the rabbis? People are suspected about the Sabbatical but not about the Sabbath. Another explanation: One counts Sabbaticals, one does not count Sabbaths. What is this about? If somebody planted less than thirty days before the Sabbatical and now it is the Sabbatical, if it is because of suspicion, there is no suspicion; if it is for counting, it is not counted. Less than thirty days before the eighth year and now it is the eighth year, if it is because of suspicion, there is suspicion; if it is because of counting, there is counting. It follows him who says because of suspicion, but for him who says because of counting they fined the unintentional because of the intentional.

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

If it was uncovered when it still was daylight he may cover it when it still is daylight. If it was uncovered after dark he may cover if after dark. If it was uncovered when it still was daylight and the day became holy for him? It was stated: One does not store hot water away after dark but one may add over it garments and vessels. How much must be on them that it be permitted to cover them? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Even a handkerchief. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only something of use. Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything is useful. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. If somebody would take a rag and put it on his head in the cold, would this not conquer the cold?

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Aqiba said, I asked Rebbi Eliezer: If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one separately? He told him, he is liable for each occurrence separately by an argument de minore ad majus. Since for the menstruating woman, which does not entail many ramifications nor many purification sacrifices, he is liable for each single occurrence, for the Sabbath which has many ramifications and many purification sacrifices it is only logical that he be liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the menstruating woman where there are two warnings, for he is warned about a menstruating woman and the menstruating woman is warned about him, what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one warning? He said to me, one who has intercourse with an underage girl shall prove it, where there is only one warning, but he is liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the underage girl who even though there is no warning now there will be one in the future, what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one [warning] whether now or in the future. He told me, one having intercourse with an animal shall prove it. I said to him, the animal is like the Sabbath.

Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Do you not catch him because of the error regarding the Sabbath? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: He asked him two questions. About intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work that he be liable for every single one. In case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding works does one treat the derivatives like that main item? Rebbi Jacob ben Dasai said, and in the House of Rebbi it was stated so: “If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or once for each single one?” Many works of the same category, this describes intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. Many Sabbaths all of the same category, this describes error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work.

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work, principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places, a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. Also here: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself, a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not] infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

He who burns potter’s clay, softens glass, melts pitch, melts מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking. One who roasts, or who fries, who preserves by cooking, or by smoking, all these because of cooking. If somebody cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, what? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias? Two Amoraim, one said, it is forbidden; the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, do not eat from it raw, nor cooked in water. But he who said, it is permitted, but only roasted in fire, its head with its feet and its innards.

It was stated: “A smooth stone the size of an olive, or a walnut, or an egg, he may take and cleanse his feet with it. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: up to a full hand.” Rav Jehudah said, Boetius ben Zenon was sitting and repeating before Rebbi; he said, so we are saying, it is necessary that he sit down and take it in his hand. He told him, everything is permitted except what is formed like a small sack. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: it may be like the base of a small mortar of a spice dealer. Rebbi Yose said, they only said, of a spice. But not of spices. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A pebble on which grasses grew he may take and cleanse his feet with it. But if he plucks off from it on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: It is forbidden to cleanse oneself with any potsherd. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only potsherds but even handles of amphoras, and anything which was brought into the fire and came out again. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, a pebble which had been used by another person and water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah one may not use to cleanse himself. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to cleanse himself with water which a dog licked. And it was stated so: One cleans himself neither with a dog’s mouth, nor in presence of a dog, nor with water which the dog had licked off, nor with water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah. And if somebody washes in the bath house or washes in a bathtub, it is bad for hemorrhoids. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Five things were said about a reed blade: One does not use it to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to clean teeth with it, nor does one use it to cut meat on the table, nor does one cleanse himself, because an evil spirit resides on it.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose asked: This implies that if somebody took out the volume of a dried fig on his shoulder, he is liable. Is that the carrying of the Kehatites? But it is written, the office of Eleazar, Aaron’s son, the priest: The oil for illumination, the spice incense, the permanent flour offering, and the anointing oil. The oil for illumination in his right hand, the spice incense in his left hand, the permanent flour offering of that day hanging on his arm. Where was the anointing oil? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: a small flask he had on his money belt.

HALAKHAH: 6 So is the Mishnah: “he acted intentionally.” This is difficult. If somebody shot an arrow intending to kill a person, he was warned, and changed his intention; is that anything? Finally you have to say that it was intentional.

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid). “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid). “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

Rebbi Eleazar said, a person can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “If a vessel was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave [of the tithe] tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that. What is to be done? “From before I shall separate it.” Think about it, if it was pure heave, “from before I shall eat it.” Think about it, if it was impure heave, “from before I shall deposit it in a corner.”

“If he circumcised but did not uncover the circumcision it is as if he did not circumcise.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left [in the day] to correct it. But if there is time left [in the day] to correct, he corrects without hesitation. It was stated: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we had stated there: “Rebbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot [that it was the Sabbath] and took the palm branch into the public domain he is not liable since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah.

MISHNAH: One anoints and massages the belly but one does not exercise or scratch. One does not go to a mud-bath, nor does one make an emetic on the Sabbath, nor does one stretch a baby, nor set a fracture. If somebody’s hand or foot became dislocated he cannot force it back with cold water but he may wash in his usual way and if this healed him, he was healed.

MISHNAH: If somebody is caught on the road when it gets dark, he gives his wallet to a Non-Jew; if no Non-Jew is with him he puts it on the donkey. If he comes to an outer courtyard he removes the implements which may be moved on the Sabbath. For those which may not be moved he unties the rope and the sacks fall down by themselves.

A corral which covers up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abbahu said, since it can be permitted by a caravan, if somebody threw from the public domain into it he is liable. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, (not after it was permitted) [if it was chosen by] the caravan it becomes forbidden in a prohibition; therefore here is no liability for a purification sacrifice. By the same argument, an alley whose beam is higher than twenty cubits since it is qualified in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah (more than thirteen), if somebody threw from the public domain into it would he be liable? An alley which was breached more than ten [cubits], since a breach of an alley in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah is more than thirteen, if somebody threw from the public domain into it would he be liable?

A corral which covers up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abbahu said, since it can be permitted by a caravan, if somebody threw from the public domain into it he is liable. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, (not after it was permitted) [if it was chosen by] the caravan it becomes forbidden in a prohibition; therefore here is no liability for a purification sacrifice. By the same argument, an alley whose beam is higher than twenty cubits since it is qualified in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah (more than thirteen), if somebody threw from the public domain into it would he be liable? An alley which was breached more than ten [cubits], since a breach of an alley in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah is more than thirteen, if somebody threw from the public domain into it would he be liable?

A corral which covers up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abbahu said, since it can be permitted by a caravan, if somebody threw from the public domain into it he is liable. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, (not after it was permitted) [if it was chosen by] the caravan it becomes forbidden in a prohibition; therefore here is no liability for a purification sacrifice. By the same argument, an alley whose beam is higher than twenty cubits since it is qualified in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah (more than thirteen), if somebody threw from the public domain into it would he be liable? An alley which was breached more than ten [cubits], since a breach of an alley in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah is more than thirteen, if somebody threw from the public domain into it would he be liable?

“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?

“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?

MISHNAH: One may make an eruv with demay, and with First Tithe from which heave has been taken, and Second Tithe or dedicated [food] which was redeemed; Cohanim with ḥallah and with heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe from which heave was not taken, and Second Tithe or dedicated [food] which was not redeemed. If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor, or by somebody who does not accept eruvin, it is not an eruv. If he told a third person to receive it from him it is an eruv.

MISHNAH: One may make an eruv with demay, and with First Tithe from which heave has been taken, and Second Tithe or dedicated [food] which was redeemed; Cohanim with ḥallah and with heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe from which heave was not taken, and Second Tithe or dedicated [food] which was not redeemed. If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor, or by somebody who does not accept eruvin, it is not an eruv. If he told a third person to receive it from him it is an eruv.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “A person may make his eruv conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his ˋeruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. (But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not.) Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

If he did not stipulate? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody made eruvim for two domains he can go to the South according to his eruv in the North, to the North according to his eruv in the South. If he split the domain he may not move from his place.” An animal belonging to two partners one of which made an eruv in the North and the other in the South. It may walk to the South according to the eruv of the one in the North and to the North according to the eruv of the one in the South. If they split the domain it may not move from its place. If they slaughtered it. Rav said, limbs suck from one another. Ulla bar Ismael said, limbs do not suck from one another. Rav agrees about an amphora that it was his part from before.

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

MISHNAH: If somebody was taken out by Gentiles or an evil spirit he only has four cubits. If they brought him back it is as if he had not left. If they conducted him to another town or put him into a sheep-pen, or a sheep corral, Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah say he may walk its entirety; Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba say, he only has four cubits. It happened that they came from Brundisium when the ship went out to sea; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah walked its entirety; Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba did not stir out of their four cubits, for they wanted to be strict with themselves.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was taken out by Gentiles,” etc. Otherwise what would we say? He should be considered like someone who left with permission and he should have 2’000 cubits in every direction. Therefore [it is necessary] to say that “he only has four cubits.” From where the four cubits? Stay everybody at his spot. And from where 2’000 cubits? A person should not leave his place on the Seventh Day. Or switching, as (we have stated) [it was stated so:] “Issy ben Aqiba says “place, place”. It is said here place, and it is said there, I shall Give you a place. Since the place mentioned there includes 2’000 cubits, so the place mentioned here includes 2’000 cubits.” “The four cubits which they mentioned are his full length and outstretched arms. Rebbi Jehudah says, he and three cubits, so he can take an amphora from above his head and put it below his feet.” If he relieves himself, he relieves himself at the side; if he prays, he prays in the diagonal.

It only said, “if they brought him back.” Therefore, if he returned by himself, he is forbidden. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s. As it was stated: “Produce which came into the public domain and returned, if in error it may be eaten, if intentional it may not be eaten. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, whether in error or intentional it may not be eaten unless it was returned in error.” Rebbi Neḥemiah parallels Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: “If somebody tithed or cooked on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentional it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr.”

MISHNAH: If somebody left with permission when they told him that the deed already had been done he has 2’000 cubits in each direction. If this reached him inside the Sabbath domain it is as if he never left, for all those who leave to save may return to their place.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left with permission,” etc. For otherwise what would we say? That he should be treated like somebody who left by compulsion and he should have only four cubits. Therefore it was necessary to say, “he has 2’000 cubits in each direction.” Rav Ḥuna says, only if four cubits each intersect with the domain of Tiberias and with the domain of Magdala. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Even if he went to Magdala and returned he is as if he had not left. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: So far if he left in error. Even if he left intentionally? Rebbi Phineas said, the Mishnah says so: “for all those who leave to save may return to their place.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left with permission,” etc. For otherwise what would we say? That he should be treated like somebody who left by compulsion and he should have only four cubits. Therefore it was necessary to say, “he has 2’000 cubits in each direction.” Rav Ḥuna says, only if four cubits each intersect with the domain of Tiberias and with the domain of Magdala. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Even if he went to Magdala and returned he is as if he had not left. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: So far if he left in error. Even if he left intentionally? Rebbi Phineas said, the Mishnah says so: “for all those who leave to save may return to their place.”

MISHNAH: Somebody who sat down on the road; when he gets up, behold, he is close to a town: since it was not his intention he may not enter, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may enter. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Tarphon entered without intention.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody slept on the road,” etc. They said, was not Rebbi Tarphon’s house of study within 2’000 cubits? Or maybe he made himself part of his town when it was still daytime? It was found stated: In the morning the sun shone. They told him, rabbi, here the town is before you, please enter.

MISHNAH: If somebody slept on the road and did not realize that night fell he has 2’000 cubits in every direction, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, but the Sages say, he only has four cubits. Rebbi Eleazar says, he is in the center; Rebbi Jehudah says, in any direction which he chooses. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he selected one he cannot retract it.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody slept on the road and did not realize until after night fell,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥasdai. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri: Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, when he was sleeping he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah says, even awake and he did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction. Rebbi Jehudah’s statement follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s (and exceeds Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s). For Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain, if he was awake and did not acquire a Sabbath domain; he only has 2’000 cubits in every direction.

Rebbi Ḥuna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked: if a proselyte immersed himself after sunrise. “Since if he had been awake he would have acquired a Sabbath domain,” what does Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri say in this case? Let us hear from the following. For Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. If he selected while it still was daytime, he may change his mind while it still is daytime; after nightfall he may change his mind after nightfall. If he selected while it still was daytime, and the day became holy for him? Let us hear from the following: “he may not enter, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, he may enter” Not on this was it said, but on the start of the Chapter; on “if somebody was taken out by Gentiles or an evil spirit,” it was said . Rebbi Abun said, “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he selected one he cannot retract it.”

MISHNAH: If somebody was on the road and afraid lest it get dark but he knew of a tree or a wall and says, “my Sabbath rest shall be under it,” he did not say anything. “My Sabbath rest in its roots”, he walks from the place of his feet to the roots 2’000 cubits and from the roots to his house 2’000 cubits; it turns out that he may walk 4’000 cubits after nightfall. If he does not know or is not conversant with practice and said, my Sabbath rest shall be at my place, his place empowers him 2’000 cubits in every direction, circular according to Rebbi Ḥanania ben Antigonos. But the Sages say square like a square table, that he gain the corners.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Simeon says, to what is this similar,” etc. “If somebody was on the road and is afraid lest it get dark,” etc. “If he does not know or is not conversant with practice,” etc. “That is what they said, the poor person makes an eruv with his feet,” etc. Rebbi Meïr is of the opinion, the main point of an eruv is by a loaf. Why did they say, by his feet? To make it easy for the poor who has no loaf. And Rebbi Jehudah said, the main point of an eruv is by his feet. Why did they say, by a loaf? To make it easy for the rich person that he does not have to go out by his feet.

MISHNAH: If somebody started to go to another town for which one makes an eruv but another person intercepted him, he is permitted to go but the remainder of the town is forbidden, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, anybody who could have made an eruv but did not make the eruv is a donkey driver-camel driver.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody started to go to another town.” One may give this two interpretations. If he said, I shall make an eruv for you and your townspeople, and made the eruv for his townspeople but not for him. He is forbidden to go in that direction but permitted all other directions in his town; they are permitted to go in that direction but forbidden all other directions in their town. One may give it another interpretation. If he said, I shall make an eruv for you and your townspeople and made the eruv neither for his townspeople nor for him. He is permitted to go in that direction for his feet already acquired for him the day before; they are forbidden to go in that direction but permitted all other directions in his town.

MISHNAH: If somebody left the Sabbath domain for even one cubit he may not reenter. Rebbi Simeon says, Rebbi Eleazar says, for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter. If somebody was outside the Sabbath domain at nightfall for even one cubit he may not enter. Rebbi Simeon says, even fifteen cubits he may enter since the rope-spanners do not exhaust the measure because of errors.

MISHNAH: If somebody left the Sabbath domain for even one cubit he may not reenter. Rebbi Simeon says, Rebbi Eleazar says, for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter. If somebody was outside the Sabbath domain at nightfall for even one cubit he may not enter. Rebbi Simeon says, even fifteen cubits he may enter since the rope-spanners do not exhaust the measure because of errors.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody left the Sabbath domain,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena and Rav Ḥasdai both are saying, he said only “two”. Therefore could he enter with two and a little bit? Since this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, as Rebbi Eleazar said, “for two he may re-enter, three he may not re-enter.” Rebbi Yose told him, one says at the end, “three he may not re-enter,” therefore three minus a little bit he may re-enter. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Eleazar said is about one who left, therefore not about one who stayed overnight. It was found stated, one is like the other. They wanted to say, what Rebbi Simeon said is about one who stayed overnight, therefore not about one who left. It was found stated, one is like the other.

MISHNAH: If somebody was in the East and told his son to make him an eruv in the West, or in the West and told his son to make him an eruv in the East, if there are from his place to his house 2’000 cubits but to his eruv more than this, he is permitted up to his house but forbidden to his eruv; if to his eruv 2’000 cubits but to his house more than that, he is permitted up to his eruv but forbidden to his house. If somebody puts his eruv in the complement of the town he did not do anything. If he puts it outside the domain what he had gained he loses.

MISHNAH: If somebody was in the East and told his son to make him an eruv in the West, or in the West and told his son to make him an eruv in the East, if there are from his place to his house 2’000 cubits but to his eruv more than this, he is permitted up to his house but forbidden to his eruv; if to his eruv 2’000 cubits but to his house more than that, he is permitted up to his eruv but forbidden to his house. If somebody puts his eruv in the complement of the town he did not do anything. If he puts it outside the domain what he had gained he loses.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If somebody was in the East,” etc. Because of the difficulty did Bar Qappara ask, the East of his son and the West of his son? One understands “if there are from his place to his house 2’000 cubits but to his eruv more than this, he is permitted up to his house but forbidden to his eruv.” “If to his eruv be 2’000 cubits but to his house more than that, he is permitted up to his eruv but forbidden to his house”?

MISHNAH: The people of a large town walk through all of a small town; the people of a small town walk through all of a large town. How is that? If somebody lived in a large town and put his eruv in a small town, or in a small town and put his eruv in a large town, he walks through all of it and outside of it 2’000 cubits. But Rebbi Aqiba says, he only has 2’000 cubits from the place of his eruv.

A town which was destroyed. Rebbi Eleazar says, he walks its entirety and outside 2’000 cubits. Samuel says, he only has 2’000 cubits [from] the place of his eruv. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rab: If somebody deposits his eruv in a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral he walks its entirety and outside it 2’000 cubits. Are a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral not as if houses and apartments were destroyed?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dwells with a Non-Jew in a courtyard,” etc. “A Non-Jew’s courtyard is like a sheep-pen or a sheep-corral.” The rabbis objected to Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, would the animal not forbid? Just as an animal forbids so the Gentile forbids. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob objected to the rabbis: If a Jew and an animal were living in a courtyard, what would the animal forbid? Just as an animal does not forbid so the Gentile does not forbid.

MISHNAH: When may one start giving away rights? The House of Shammai say, as long as it is daylight, but the House of Hillel say, when it gets dark. If somebody gave away his rights and then brought out, whether in error or intentionally, he forbids, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, intentionally he forbids, in error he does not forbid.

“If somebody gave away his rights and then brought out.” So is the Mishnah: If somebody ceded his rights, “whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the Mishnah: He does not forbid.

“If somebody gave away his rights and then brought out.” So is the Mishnah: If somebody ceded his rights, “whether in error or intentionally, he forbids.” So is the Mishnah: He does not forbid.

Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody put aside his šeqel and died? He told him, it should be used for voluntary gifts. The excess of his tenth of an epha, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be used for voluntary gifts. They asked before him: May one cede rights from courtyard to courtyard? He told them, one may cede rights from courtyard to courtyard.

There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent, in case it died he is not liable.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower. Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

MISHNAH: If somebody leaves his house to stay in an other town for the Sabbath, whether he be Gentile of Jewish, he forbids, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, a Gentile forbids but a Jew does not forbid since it is not Jewish to come on the Sabbath. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he left his house and went to keep the Sabbath at his daughter’s in the same town he does not forbid since already he does not think of it any more.

MISHNAH: If somebody builds an upper floor connecting two houses, and similarly open bridges, one carries under them, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said that one may make an eruv for open alleys but the Sages forbid it.

MISHNAH: A person may stand in a private domain and move something in the public domain, in the public domain and move something in the private, on condition that he not move it more than four cubits. A person may not stand in a private domain and urinate in the public, or in the public and urinate in the private. Similarly, he may not spit. Rebbi Jehudah says, even somebody whose spittle was accumulating should not walk four cubits before spitting.

“If somebody leaves to travel by sea, before thirty days he does not have to check; within thirty [days] he has to check”. That is to say, if he intends to return. But if he does not intend to return, even before thirty days he has to check. If there is a doubt; but if it is certain then even from New Year’s Day. Rebbi Abba said, but even if he intends to return he has to check, maybe he will change his mind and not return.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah, corresponding to the three times that in the Torah is written, leavening shall not be seen as yours. But is it not written, you shall remove leavening from your houses? That is a positive commandment. But is it not written, for seven days leavening shall not be found in your houses? Rebbi Yose said, since they are mutually needed, they are as one. It should not be seen as yours, I would have said, if somebody deposited with him it should be permitted. The verse says, it shall not be found in your houses. If it shall not be found in your houses, if he gave him a separate place it should be forbidden. The verse says, it shall not be seen as yours. How is this? If he deposited with him it is forbidden; if he gave him a separate place it is permitted.

If somebody rents out his house to another, as long as this one does not enter into it, the lessor has to eliminate; after this one entered into it, the lessee has to eliminate. Rebbi Simeon said, when? If he handed him the key, but as long as he did not hand him the key, he does not have to eliminate.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I asked: What if he handed him the key? Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi said, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there: “If somebody hands over his key to a vulgar person, the house remains pure since he only entrusted him with safekeeping the key.” It was stated: Rebbi Simeon declares it impure.

There, we have stated: “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

There, we have stated: “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

MISHNAH: Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth, if intentionally is not liable for restitution even as value of wood.

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

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

[What is] (no) to celebrate the holiday according to his wishes? At his teacher’s or at somebody greater than he in wisdom. Here did Rebbi state that action precedes study. They voted in the upper floor of the house of Arius in Lydda that study precedes action.

Rebbi Abbahu sent his son Rebbi Ḥanina to acquire merit in Tiberias. They came and said to him, he does works of charity. He sent to tell him, are there no graves in Caesarea that I sent you to Tiberias? For they already voted and decided in the upper floor of the house of Arius in Lydda that study precedes action. The rabbis of Caesaria say, that is, if there is somebody there who will do it. But if nobody is there who will do it, the action has precedence. Example. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, were late in coming to Rebbi Eleazar. He asked them, where have you been? They told him, performing an act of charity. He asked them, where there no others? They answered him, it was a neighbor.

MISHNAH: Similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem and remembers that he has with him sacrificial meat, if he passed Mount Scopus he burns it on the spot, otherwise he returns and burns it before the citadel on altar wood. Up to what do they return? Rebbi Meïr says, in both cases the size of an olive; Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases the size of an egg. But the Sages say, sacrificial meat in the volume of an olive, but leavened matter in that of an egg.

Some Tannaim state it switched. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa following our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, an indication is that of Berakhot: “What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Jehudah says to the size of an egg.” Less than that one does not importune him to return. What is the difference between one and the other? One can be declared insignificant, the other cannot be declared insignificant. So far sacrificial meat; leavened matter from where? Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from what we have stated, “similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem”, this implies that what is incident to one is incident to the other.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may they not bring a male to her, she is fertilized and gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may they not bring a female to him, he fertilizes her and she gives birth? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Haggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with (slaves) [fetuses]? He said to them, Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you, since Rebbi Abun said in the name of the rabbis there, this implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen.

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

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

MISHNAH: If he slaughtered it for those who cannot not eat it, for those who did not subscribe to it, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure, it is disqualified. For those who eat it and those who will not eat it, for those who subscribed to it and those who did not subscribe to it, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, or for the pure and the impure, it is qualified. If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified since it was said about it: between the evenings. If one slaughtered it before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified, on condition that somebody stir the blood until after the blood of the daily evening sacrifice was poured; but if the blood was poured it is qualified.

Ḥizqiah stated: Do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice, the Torah called it “My sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, if Ḥizqiah had not stated this, do we find anything disqualified because of which one is liable for a purification sacrifice? If somebody leavens the disqualified. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says liable, if it became disqualified because of its leavening; he who says not liable, if it did not become disqualified because of its leavening.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody became disinterested in his Pesaḥ, its body is brought as well-being offering. Rebbi Jonah said, qualified well-being offering. Rebbi Yose said, disqualified well-being offering. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the only Pesaḥ which itself is brought as well-being offering is what was lost and found after the owner had fulfilled his obligation. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Samuel said, in any case where they said that a purification sacrifice is allowed to die, a Pesaḥ will be brought as well-being sacrifice. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and disqualified. They explain it, not liable and qualified.

If somebody ate the volume of an olive raw when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not eat from it raw, in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted he is under obligation not to eat raw; at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted he is not obligated not to eat raw.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity, you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case.] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity, you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. [As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case.] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

MISHNAH: If somebody lets others subscribe to his part, they are empowered to give him his part, so that he eats of his and they eat of theirs.

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

It was stated: One says “time” only at the three festivals of pilgrimage. Rebbi Mana said, a baraita says so, on the festival of mazzot, the festival of weeks, and the festival of booths. It was stated: For any {day} where it is stated “declaration as holy” one has to say ”time”. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, this is correct. If somebody saw a fig as first fruit, does he not have to recite “time”? This applies to New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Does not a baraita disagree? “ lf somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 50 in one vessel each. But if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Somebody could say, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim, simply, without specifying the number of vessels in which be brings them; why does he specify “to bring them in two vessels”? To bring them 50 in one vessel each/ And we have stated on this, if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since up to 60 they can be mixed, it is as if from the start he fixed it at 60. It would be necessary to say, “if somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 60 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 30 in one vessel each. But if he brought 40 in one vessel and 20 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” It was found stated thus.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Does not a baraita disagree? “ lf somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 50 in one vessel each. But if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Somebody could say, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim, simply, without specifying the number of vessels in which be brings them; why does he specify “to bring them in two vessels”? To bring them 50 in one vessel each/ And we have stated on this, if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since up to 60 they can be mixed, it is as if from the start he fixed it at 60. It would be necessary to say, “if somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 60 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 30 in one vessel each. But if he brought 40 in one vessel and 20 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” It was found stated thus.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Does not a baraita disagree? “ lf somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 50 in one vessel each. But if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Somebody could say, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim, simply, without specifying the number of vessels in which be brings them; why does he specify “to bring them in two vessels”? To bring them 50 in one vessel each/ And we have stated on this, if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since up to 60 they can be mixed, it is as if from the start he fixed it at 60. It would be necessary to say, “if somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 60 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 30 in one vessel each. But if he brought 40 in one vessel and 20 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” It was found stated thus.

If he removed with his left hand, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Jehudah ben Rebbi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a fistful had been sanctified in a dedicated vessel and he burned it whether out of his hand or out of a vessel, whether by his right hand or by the left. Jehudah ben Rebbi said, either like a purification offering from the hand, or like a reparation offering from a vessel, but only with the right hand. They objected: Was it not stated, if he received with his right hand and then put it into his left hand, he must return it to the right hand? If from the left hand he returns it for the altar, not so much more to the cup? Rebbi La said, if somebody stated this, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon stated it. As it was stated, it does not need sanctification in a cup. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated there, “not in a dedicated vessel it is disqualified, but Rebbi Simeon qualifies it.” How is it? The rabbis who require a dedicated vessel need the right hand; Rebbi Simeon [who] does not require a dedicated vessel does not need the right hand. Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how the rabbis could compare the removal of ashes to burning, but it can be compared only to the lifting of the fistful, since both are by lifting.

May one witness be believed? It is different here since one cannot control him; should we not worry and say, by the time somebody climbs up and goes out it will shine? The matter can be verified. If one witness says, this male was born on the Sabbath, one circumcises him on his word. Rebbi Immi was carrying on the result of elapsed time. Rebbi Mattaniah was carrying on the saying of the moon shining. Rebbi Immi was (carrying) [circumcising] on the saying of women, the sun was over Hippos.