somebody

It was stated: A person sleeping needs immersion, being drowsy needs sanctification of hands and legs. Does a person sleeping need immersion? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard except for the kings of the Davidic dynasty;” and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even for the kings of the Davidic dynasty there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that somebody was supporting himself on a wall and sleeping. But is it not written, King David came and sat before the Eternal? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated in prayer.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven, as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax and you cannot infer anything.

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct

Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose. Is there not written: The two men who have the lawsuit shall stand before the Eternal? Now men, is not two the minimum of “men”? If so, why does it say two? That both be equal? But it is written: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan,… So we find that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against somebody who is not a widow. Then why does the verse say two? It is free to be combined and one may infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a (judge) [witness]; consequently a woman may not be a (witness) [judge].

“They asked Rebbi Eliezer, if the agent got sick? He said to them, so you shall be in peace. If the scapegoat fell ill? He said to them, it can carry you and me. If he pushed it but it did not die? He said to them, so it shall happen to all enemies of Heaven. Not that Rebbi Eliezer wanted to distract them, only that he did not tell them statements which he never had heard. But the Sages are saying, if the agent got sick, he sends it by somebody else/ If the scapegoat fell ill, he lets it be carried on a donkey. If he pushed it but it did not die, he has to descend after it and kill it.”

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: “If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them.

“Washing”. Rebbi Zeˋurah bar Ḥama, [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina.] in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: On a public fast day one washes as usual his face, hands, and feet. On the Ninth of Av one washes his hands and moves them over his face. On the day of Atonement one washes his hands, dries them with a towel, and moves the towel over his face. Rebbi Jonah moistened a rag and put it under the water pitcher. But did we not state that there is no difference between a public fast and the Ninth of Av except the prohibition of work at places where they were used to it? If somebody was going to his teacher or to his daughter and crossed a lake or a river he does not worry. If his feet were dirtied he immerses them in water and does not worry. Rebbi Abba instructed following this Tanna. Rebbi Aḥa instructed that one who comes from the road and his feet are dulled, he may wash them in water. It was stated: A mourner and one in the ban on a trip are permitted leather shoes. When they come to the town they shall take them off. The same applies to a public fast and the Ninth of Av.

Rebbi Yose understood all this from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate and drank he is liable only once.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but it is said following this, “an oath that I shall not eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is liable for two”! Rebbi Yose told them, if somebody had two loaves in front of him said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf, when he ate [both of them] together would he not be guilty on two counts?

MISHNAH: A person suffering from boulimy one feeds even impure food until his eyes light up. One does not feed the cover of a rabid dog’s liver to a person bitten by a rabid dog, but Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash permits it. In addition, Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash said, if somebody suffers from throat ache, one pours him medicine into it since it is an uncertainty of a danger to life, since any uncertainty of a danger to life pushes the Šabbath aside. If a wall collapsed over somebody, it is uncertain whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Gentile or a Jew, one digs him out. If one finds him alive, one digs him out, if dead one shall leave him.

MISHNAH: A person suffering from boulimy one feeds even impure food until his eyes light up. One does not feed the cover of a rabid dog’s liver to a person bitten by a rabid dog, but Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash permits it. In addition, Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash said, if somebody suffers from throat ache, one pours him medicine into it since it is an uncertainty of a danger to life, since any uncertainty of a danger to life pushes the Šabbath aside. If a wall collapsed over somebody, it is uncertain whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Gentile or a Jew, one digs him out. If one finds him alive, one digs him out, if dead one shall leave him.

MISHNAH: If somebody say, “I shall sin and repent, I shall sin and repent,” one does not let him achieve to repent. “I shall sin and the day of Atonement will atone,” the Day of Atonement does not atone. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor. The following did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain: Of all your unintentional sins before the Eternal you shall be cleansed. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor. Rebbi Aqiba said, blessed are you, Israel. Before whom do you cleanse yourselves, and who cleanses you? Your Father Who is in Heaven, as it is said, I shall sprinkle on you pure water, so you shall be pure. And it is said Israel’s hope is the Eternal, since a miqweh purifies the impure people, so the Holy One, praise to Him, cleanses Israel.

Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy. He said to him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children. But another verse says, for on that day He shall atone for you. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return, naughty children. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement atones. About this one it says, for on that day, He shall atone for you. If one intentionally transgressed {sins punishable by} extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings during the other days of the year atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquities with plagues. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone one third, sufferings atone a third, and death scours with sufferings. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat atones. How does it atone? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in small pieces. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: “There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram: The Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone without the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram since the ram atones immediately but the Day of Atonement only atones at nightfall.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately

If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure.

Somebody put aside his sheqel and it was lost. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is responsible for its alienation until he delivers to the Temple trustee. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Temple property is Heaven’s at any place where it may be. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim..” Still this is because of a regulation oath.

MISHNAH: If one gives his sheqel to another person to deliver it for him but that one uses it for himself, if the sums were disbursed he committed me`ilah. If somebody pays his sheqel from Temple money, if the sums were disbursed and the animal sacrificed he committed me`ilah. From Second Tithe or Sabbatical money, he shall eat correspondingly.

HALAKHAH: “He who pays the sheqel,” etc. We have stated, “if the sums were disbursed.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “if the animal was sacrificed.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if the animal was sacrificed”? Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, he receives his money immediately, the priests are quick. It is difficult. If somebody stole another’s elevation offering and slaughtered it without special mention, is it not without special mention atoning for the original owner? Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim throwing it into the chest. But should one not worry that maybe it will become part of the remainder; is there me`ilah for the remainder? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, there is me`ilah for the remainder. Still if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim and disbursed it in his name.

MISHNAH: If somebody collects coins and says, “these are for my sheqel,” the House of Shammai say, the excess is gift, but the House of Hillel say, the excess is profane. “That I shall take from these for my sheqel,” they agree that the excess is profane. “These are for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is gift, “that I shall take from these for a purification offering,” they agree that the excess is profane. Rebbi Simeon said, what is the difference between sheqalim and a purification offering? It is that sheqalim have a fixed value and a purification offering has no fixed value. Rebbi Jehudah said, sheqalim also have no fixed value. When Israel returned from the Babylonian exile they gave as Temple tax darics, they continued to give sela`im, they continued to give minted coins, they wanted to give denars. Rebbi Simeon said, anyhow everybody gave the same, but for a purification offering, one brings for a tetradrachma, another for two, and still another for three.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody collects coins,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these [are for my sheqel ], everybody agrees that the excess is gift. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, where do they disagree? If he collects small change. But if he says, these, everybody agrees that the excess is profane. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Bevai, [as we have stated]: “Rebbi Simeon says, what is the difference between sheqalim and purification offerings? It is that sheqalim are a fixed sum but purification offerings have no fixed price.” Where do we hold? If about one who says, “that I shall bring my sheqel from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is profane. If about one who says, “that I shall bring my purification offering from these,” everybody agrees that the excess is gift. But we must deal with the case of one who says “these sheqalim”, since from the Torah they are a fixed amount the excess is profane, “purification offerings”, since their value is not a fixed amount from the Torah the excess is gift. How does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish treat this? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of sheqalim is profane”? He explains it, if he collects small change following the House of Hillel. But did we not state, “the excess of the tenth of an ephah” [is profane]? Still he explains it if he collects small change following the House of Hillel.

If somebody put aside his sheqel in the belief that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, it was not dedicated. If he put aside two in the belief that he owed twice and it turned out that he owed only once, how do you treat the second? As one who believed that he owed it and it turned out that he did not owe, or as one who said “these”?

HALAKHAH: “The excess of sheqalim is profane,” etc. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The excess of sheqalim is profane The excess of a tenth of an ephah, the excess of nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, the nests of female sufferers from flux, the nests of women after childbirth, or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, the excesses are gift.”. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains it as excess from the tenth of an ephah of the purification offering of any one in Israel.

Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said, only in image a man wanders. It is written many a man professes good will, this is the rest of mankind; but where will you find one you can trust, that is Rebbi Ze`ira. As Rebbi Ze`ira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices, they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way, but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly, following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified, following the words of Rebbi Joshua. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices, they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way, but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly, following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified, following the words of Rebbi Joshua. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices, they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way, but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly, following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified, following the words of Rebbi Joshua. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices, they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way, but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly, following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified, following the words of Rebbi Joshua. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for any public sacrifices.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. What is Ben Azzai’s reason? For Temple property cannot be redeemed by work, only by coins.

There we have stated: “There is about gifts for the upkeep of the Temple that unspecified gifts to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple. Sanctification for the upkeep of the Temple falls on everything, and me`ilah applies to what grows from it, and priests have no usufruct from it.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer : If a man dedicate his house holy to the Eternal. How do we hold? If for a dwelling, it already is written, if the dedicator redeem his house. Therefore we hold that he dedicates his property. From here that unspecified dedications to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple.

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

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

MISHNAH: Four stamps were in the Temple; on them was written calf, ram, lamb, sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and Aramaic was written on them, calf, ram, lamb, poor sinner, rich sinner. “Calf” serves for the libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. “Lamb” serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female, except for rams. “Ram” only serves for the libations with a ram. “Sinner” serves for the three animals of the sufferer from skin disease. If somebody needs libations he goes to Joḥanan who is overseeing the stamps, gives him the money, and receives a ticket from him. He goes to Aḥiyya who is overseeing the libations, gives him the ticket, and receives the libations from him. In the evening they come together, Aḥiyya produces the tickets and receives money correspondingly. If there was a deficit, it is his deficit and Joḥanan has to pay from his own. But if there was excess it belongs to the Temple since the hand of the Temple is privileged. If somebody lost his ticket, one lets him wait until the evening. If they find for him corresponding to his ticket one gives to him; otherwise one does not give to him. The date was written on it because of the tricksters.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, in our days there were old people who used to take if somebody gave to them between New Year’s Day and the Great Fastday. After that, they were not taking. They said, there is permission for us.

HALAKHAH: “Coins which are found between the sheqalim and the voluntary gifts,” etc. It would only be necessary between sheqalim and nests! They were arranged like a snail. Would it not be necessary that it be given to sheqalim? Some want to say, maybe they would remain with the excess of the lodge. Some want to say, in the middle it is as if he died. Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to the gift account. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to the gift account.

Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift.

MISHNAH: The limbs of the daily sacrifice are deposited on the lower part of the ramp to the West, those of the musaf sacrifices on the lower part of the altar. Those of the days of the New Moon on the rim on the top of the altar. Sheqalim and First Fruits apply only if there is a Temple, but tithes of grain, and tithes of animals, and firstlings, apply whether there is a Temple or there is no Temple. If somebody dedicates sheqalim or First Fruits, they are sanctified. Rebbi Simeon says, even if somebody designates First Fruits as holy, they are not holy.

MISHNAH: The limbs of the daily sacrifice are deposited on the lower part of the ramp to the West, those of the musaf sacrifices on the lower part of the altar. Those of the days of the New Moon on the rim on the top of the altar. Sheqalim and First Fruits apply only if there is a Temple, but tithes of grain, and tithes of animals, and firstlings, apply whether there is a Temple or there is no Temple. If somebody dedicates sheqalim or First Fruits, they are sanctified. Rebbi Simeon says, even if somebody designates First Fruits as holy, they are not holy.

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

MISHNAH: If one is roofing his sukkah with spits or with girders from the bed frame, if the distance between them is equal to their diameter it is qualified. If somebody hollows out a grain stack for a sukkah, it is no sukkah.

Eudaimon the salt-dealer slept in front of his store. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba passed by and told him, go and sleep in your sukkah. Rebbi Mana was best man for Rebbi Jacob bar Yafliti. He went and asked Rebbi Yose, who told him, go and sleep in your sukkah. Rebbi Isaac bar Marion was best man for somebody. He asked Rebbi Eleazar who told him, go and sleep in your sukkah.

MISHNAH: One ties the lulav only with its own kind, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr says, even with a string. Rebbi Meïr said, it happened that the people of Jerusalem did tie their lulavim with golden jewels. They told him, under these they tied it with its own kind. Where did they move? At thank the Eternal beginning and end, and also at please, Eternal, please save, following the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, also at please, Eternal, please give success. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was watching Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua, when all the people were shaking their lulavim but they moved them only at please, Eternal, please save. If somebody returns from a trip where he had no lulav, when he enters his house he can take it at his table. If he did not take it in the morning he may take it in the afternoon since the entire day is qualified for the lulav.

HALAKHAH: Rav and Samuel. One said hallelu yah, and the other one said hallēluja. For him who said hallelu yah it is split but cannot be erased. For him who said hallelujah it may be erased but cannot be split. We do not know who said what. Since Rav said, I heard from my uncle, if somebody would give me a book of Psalms written by Rebbi Meïr I could erase all hallelujah in it since he did not intend to sanctify them. This implies that he said hallelujah. The words of the rabbis disagree, as Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the book of Psalms was said with ten expressions of praise, with “hail”, with “excellence”, with melody, with song, with chant, with instruction, with shout, with thanksgiving, with prayer, with blessing. The most beatific of all of them is hallelujah since both the Name and praise are contained in it.

MISHNAH: Originally the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven {days} and in the country one day. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav be taken in the country for seven {days} as remembrance of the Temple, and that the day of waving be entirely forbidden. If the first day of Tabernacles is a Sabbath, everybody brings their lulav to the synagogue. The next day they come in the morning and everybody recognizes his own and takes it, since they said that nobody can fulfill his obligation with another person’s lulav on the first day of Tabernacles; but on the other days of the holiday a person can fulfill his obligation with another person’s lulav. Rebbi Yose says, if somebody forgot and took the lulav into the public domain on the first day of Tabernacles which is a Sabbath he is not liable since he took it out with permission.

How for saplings? It was stated: “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits of this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” What is the reason? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And in year [the fourth]. How do you understand this? Rebbi Ze`ira said, three years they shall be uncircumcised, and in year. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is understandable if he planted it 30 days before the New Year. But if it was not planted 30 days before the New Year? Come and see: Is not a full year being counted for him, and you say so? He said to him: If it is so, even if he planted 30 days before the New Year, should it not be forbidden until 30 days before the New Year? What about it? Rebbi Mana said, since it stands in the middle of its year, it has to finish its year.

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 a Sabbath, one circumcises him on his word. It is dark at the end of the Sabbath, one carries (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 circumcising on the saying of women, the sun was over Hippos.

Why cannot always one stand up and one sit down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna knew testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied all. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that Rav Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.

MISHNAH: If somebody blows into a cistern, or into a cellar, or into a barrel, if he heard the sound of the shofar he fulfilled his obligation, if he heard the sound of the echo he did not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, if somebody was passing by a synagogue or his house was near the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or the reading of the Esther scroll, if he listened purposefully he fulfilled his obligation, otherwise he did not fulfill his obligation. Even though both heard, one listened purposefully, but the other did not listen purposefully.

MISHNAH: If somebody blows into a cistern, or into a cellar, or into a barrel, if he heard the sound of the shofar he fulfilled his obligation, if he heard the sound of the echo he did not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, if somebody was passing by a synagogue or his house was near the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or the reading of the Esther scroll, if he listened purposefully he fulfilled his obligation, otherwise he did not fulfill his obligation. Even though both heard, one listened purposefully, but the other did not listen purposefully.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it only said “somebody was passing by.” Therefore if he stood still, the presumption is that he listened purposefully. “If he put one shofar inside another shofar(,we shall say) [and blew], if one heard the sound of the inner one, he has fulfilled his obligation, if one heard the sound of the outer one, he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Abinna asked, what if he turned it inside out? Let us hear from the following: “If he scratched it inside it is disqualified, outside it is qualified.” He only said, he scratched; therefore if he turned it inside out it is disqualified. What is the difference between the two? One eliminated the inner space, the other did not eliminate the inner space.

MISHNAH: The order of shofar blowing is three times three each. The measure of a straight sound is that of three modulated sounds. The measure of a modulated sound are three whimpers. If he blew straight for the first set and continued a double length for the second he has only one in his hand. If somebody prayed and later has access to a shofar, he blows straight, modulated, and straight three times. A private person is obligated just as the public reader is obligated; Rabban Gamliel says, the public reader absolves the public from their obligation.

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 slaughtered a wild animal or a bird on the holiday, the House of Shammai say that he shall dig with a picket and cover, but the House of Hillel say that he should not slaughter unless he had dust prepared. But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, <and> that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He has to say, for me and for him who made no eruv. If somebody made no eruv, others who made an eruv are allowed to prepare for him from his own {provisions}. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: Only if he transfers his property to them, for otherwise it would turn out that they prepare for him from his own. If somebody did not make an eruv and neither did others, he may fry a fish. Rav Ḥuna said, he may heat hot water. Samuel said, he may light a candle. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “he fills an amphora of (wine) [water] and lights his candle”. “It happened that somebody put a vow on his son to study Torah. The case came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta who permitted him to fill him an amphora with water and to light the candle for him.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He has to say, for me and for him who made no eruv. If somebody made no eruv, others who made an eruv are allowed to prepare for him from his own {provisions}. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: Only if he transfers his property to them, for otherwise it would turn out that they prepare for him from his own. If somebody did not make an eruv and neither did others, he may fry a fish. Rav Ḥuna said, he may heat hot water. Samuel said, he may light a candle. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “he fills an amphora of (wine) [water] and lights his candle”. “It happened that somebody put a vow on his son to study Torah. The case came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta who permitted him to fill him an amphora with water and to light the candle for him.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He has to say, for me and for him who made no eruv. If somebody made no eruv, others who made an eruv are allowed to prepare for him from his own {provisions}. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: Only if he transfers his property to them, for otherwise it would turn out that they prepare for him from his own. If somebody did not make an eruv and neither did others, he may fry a fish. Rav Ḥuna said, he may heat hot water. Samuel said, he may light a candle. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “he fills an amphora of (wine) [water] and lights his candle”. “It happened that somebody put a vow on his son to study Torah. The case came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta who permitted him to fill him an amphora with water and to light the candle for him.”

MISHNAH: If somebody had produce in another village and the people of that village made an eruv to come to him, they should not bring him his produce. But if he made an eruv, his produce has his status.

HALAKHAH: Rav and Samuel: one says, like the feet of the depositor. The other one says, they are like the feet of him they are deposited with. The Mishnah disagrees with him who says, they are like the feet of him they are deposited with. As we have stated, “If somebody had produce in another village and the people of that village made an eruv to come to him, they should not bring him his produce” If you would say, they are like the feet of him they are deposited with, they should bring him his produce. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the key was in the hands of the owner, or that he did not concede his powers to them before the start of the holiday. And what says this? “If he invited guests they may not carry away their parts unless through another person he gave them the right to their parts on the eve of the holiday”. Are they not like the feet of him they are deposited with from the moment that he gave them the rights to their parts.

“Washing”. Ze`urah bar Ḥama, Yose the son of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: On a public fast-day one washes as usual his face, hands, and feet. On the Ninth of Av one washes his hands and moves them over his face. On the day of Atonement one washes his hands, dries them with a towel, and moves the towel over his face. Rebbi Jonah moistened a rag and put it under the water pitcher. But did we not state that there is no difference between a public fast and the Ninth of Av except the prohibition of work at places where they were used to it? If somebody was going to his teacher, or to his daughter, and crossed a lake or a river he does not worry. If his feet were dirtied he immerses them in water and does not worry. Rebbi Abba instructed following this Tanna. Rebbi Aḥa instructed that one who comes from the road and his feet are dulled, he may wash them in water. It was stated: A mourner and one in the ban on a trip are permitted leather shoes. When they come to the town they shall take them off. The same applies to a public fast and the Ninth of Av.

Explanation. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai, and Rebbi Joshia came to the fast. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda preached: Let us lift our hearts on the palms. Is this possible? May a person take his heart and put it on his hand? So what means “let us lift”? Let us treat our hearts equal to our hands, and then to God in Heaven. So if somebody would hold a crawling animal in his hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of Siloam or of the ocean, he never can become pure. But if he throws it from his hand he immediately is pure. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai preached: The ministers of Israel and the King submitted and said, the Eternal is just. And when the Eternal saw that they submitted, the Eternal’s word was to Shemaya as oracle. It is not written “their fast” but they submitted, I shall not destroy them. Rebbi Joshia preached: Become improved and improve, let us purify ourselves before we purify others. Since here are people present who calumniate me before Rebbi Joḥanan. But every single one is called to justice. Attending were Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Issy, and Rebbi Immi. They got up and left.

And why eighteen? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, corresponding to the eighteen psalms that are written from the start of Psalms to May the Eternal listen to you on the day of trouble. If somebody would say to you they are nineteen, tell him Why are<the Gentiles>in upheaval is not in the count. From here they said that one who prayed and was not answered needs to fast. Rebbi Mana said, a hint that a Torah student must say to his teacher: May your prayers be answered.

Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Corresponding to the eighteen times the Patriarchs are mentioned together in the Torah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. If somebody will tell you that there are nineteen, tell him that Behold, the Eternal was standing on it is not counted. If somebody will tell you that there are seventeen, tell him that My name should be called over them, as well the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac is counted.

Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Corresponding to the eighteen times the Patriarchs are mentioned together in the Torah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. If somebody will tell you that there are nineteen, tell him that Behold, the Eternal was standing on it is not counted. If somebody will tell you that there are seventeen, tell him that My name should be called over them, as well the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac is counted.

MISHNAH: It happened in the days of Rebbi Ḥalafta and Rebbi Ḥanania ben Teradion that somebody stood before the Ark and finished the entire benediction and they answered after him Amen. “Blow, Cohanim”, they blew. “He Who answered our forefather Abraham on Mount Moriah, He may answer you and hear your vociferation today.” “Treble, Cohanim”, they trebled. “He Who answered our forefathers on the Reed Sea, He may answer you and hear your vociferation today.” When the case came before the Sages they said, this we only used to do at the Eastern gate.

HALAKHAH: Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr., he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: that is if an individual disagrees with an individual. But in the case of an individual following the {anonymous} Sages, practice does not follow the anonymous text.

Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya. Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading. It only comes to teach you that the obligations apply to the Second Adar. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa, it is only reasonable for the past; but for the future? And did we not state, at a place where one is used to read it on two days, one reads it on two days? He said to him, I also am of this opinion. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. If somebody read it on the Fourteenth and read it again on the Fifteenth, would one not listen to him? If you are saying so, with your hand you uproot the time of walled places.

Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr, he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion.

“The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment. What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaim about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Rebbi Tarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there can be no whipping connected to extirpation, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no whipping in a case involving extirpation. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rav and Samuel. One said hallelu yah, and the other one said hallēluja. For him who said hallelu yah it is split but cannot be erased. For him who said hallelujah it may be erased but cannot be split. We do not know who said what. Since Rav said, I heard from my uncle, if somebody would give me a book of Psalms written by Rebbi Meïr I could erase all hallelujah in it since he did not intend to sanctify them. This implies that he said hallelujah. The words of the rabbis disagree, as Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the book of Psalms was said with ten expressions of praise, with “hail”, with “excellence”, with melody, with song, with chant, with instruction, with shout, [with thanksgiving,] with prayer, with blessing. The most beatific of all of them is hallelujah since both the Name and praise are contained in it.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥalaph in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥava: He who prayed should not spit until he walked four cubits. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said, similarly (spittle) <he who spat>> is the correct one. should not pray until he walked four cubits. He who urinates should not pray until he walks four cubits. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: not only that he walks four cubits but even if he waits corresponding to a walk of four cubits. If you say that he is forbidden until he removes himself four cubits, I say that somebody else came and urinated there.

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits [of him] it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct.

If somebody makes a light or a candelabrum for the synagogue, as long as the name of their owner is not forgotten, one is not empowered to change them to another place; if the name of their owner is forgotten, one is empowered to change them to another place. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if the owner’s name was engraved on it, it is as if the name of their owner is not forgotten. Antoninus made a candelabrum for the synagogue. Rebbi heard and said, praise to God Who inspired him to make a candelabrum for the synagogue. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, what did Rebbi say? Praise to God or praise to our God? If he said praise to God, this implies that Antoninus did not convert; if he said praise to our God this implies that Antoninus did convert.

“In matters of real estate nine and a Cohen.” Corresponding to the ten times “Cohen” is mentioned in the paragraph. Then should they not all be Cohanim? An inclusion after an inclusion is an exclusion. Then could they all be Israel? The paragraph has no result without a Cohen. That is, if one dedicated the body of a field. But if he said, I am vowing the value of my field for the Temple, let us hear from the following: “Appraisal of movables by three {appraisers}.” Do there exist appraisals not of movables? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am vowing my appraisal, and comes to settle his debt by real estate, one appraises it by ten {persons}, by movables by three. Is one who says, I am vowing my appraisal not like one who says, I am vowing my field’s value? But if he said, I am vowing a hundred mina for the Temple, one appraises him by three. Should he become rich, he will be judged by what he can afford.

MISHNAH: If somebody said, I shall not stand before the Ark in coloreds, also in whites he shall not stand. With sandals I shall not stand, also barefoot he shall not stand. He who makes his tefillah round puts himself in danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he places it on his forehead or on his hand, it is the way of heretics. If he covered it with gold and put it on his sleeve, it is the way of outsiders.

HALAKHAH: “One does not close with the Chariot, but Rebbi Jehudah permits. And Rebbi Eliezer says, one does not close with tell Jerusalem its abominations. It happened that somebody closed with tell Jerusalem its abominations. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, may this man go and be informed of the abominations of his mother. They checked him out and he was found to be a bastard.”

“Each man”, to exclude the minor. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if he said, it is on me to bring a festival offering worth five tetradrachmas, but he brought for two; did he fulfill his obligation or is he already fixed Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If somebody said, it is on me to bring a reparation sacrifice for five tetradrachmas, is he not fixed? And here he is fixed.

They voted in the upper floor of the house of Arius that study precedes action. Rebbi Abbahu dwelt in Caesarea. He sent his son Rebbi Ḥanina to acquire merit in Tiberias. They sent and said to him, he does works of charity. He wrote to him, are there no graves in Caesarea that I sent you to Tiberias? For they already voted 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.

Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Samuel: One makes no inferences from a ruling. Everybody agrees that one makes no inferences from an action. Rebbi Mana said to him, that means somebody who does not understand, but he who understands may act. He said to him, whether one understands or one does not understand, if there is a disagreement. But if there is no disagreement, whether one understands or one does not understand one acts.

HALAKHAH: Is hand-washing required for profane food? But it must follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, hand-washing is required for profane food. It is everybody’s opinion, so he should separate from heave. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follow Rebbi Aqiba, as we have stated there, “if somebody puts his hands into a leprous house, his hands are impure in the first degree, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages are saying, his hands are impure in the second degree”? There, it follows the rabbis; what is their reason here? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave. But did they not decide about them because of fluids; then they should be impure in the first degree? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since the Tevul Yom, which is a word from the Torah, only disqualifies, impure hands, which are from their words, not so much more? Another explanation: Did they not decide about hands only that he should separate from heave? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave.

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

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, If there were somebody who would vote with me, I would permit to sell firstling meat by the pound and I would permit to work on the intermediate days of the holiday. They only forbade to sell firstling meat by the pound so it should be sold cheaply; but they are tricky about it and selling it dearly. They only forbade to work on the intermediate days of the holiday so they should eat, and drink, and exert themselves in Torah; but they eat, and drink, and behave wantonly.

One who is excommunicated by the teacher is excommunicated for the student; excommunicated by the student is not excommunicated for the teacher. One who is excommunicated by the chief judge is excommunicated for the rabbi; excommunicated by the rabbi is not excommunicated for the chief judge. One who is excommunicated by the patriarch is excommunicated for everybody. So far if an ordained rabbi excommunicated; even a fellow? Let us hear from the following: A slave woman of Bar Pata passed by a synagogue. She saw a Bible teacher who hit a child more than necessary. He said to him, this man has to be put in the ban. He went and asked Rebbi Aḥa who told him, you have to worry about yourself. This implies that a person who does something unbecoming needs to be excommunicated. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was looking after figs at Barbarit. Robbers came and stole from them during the night. At the end he noticed them. He said to them, these people shall be excommunicated. They said to him, this person shall be excommunicated. He was worried about himself. He said, they owe me money; maybe souls? He went out after them, said to them: permit me. They said to him, if you permit us we shall permit you. This implies that if somebody excommunicated somebody unnecessarily and he in turn excommunicated him, his excommunication is excommunication.

One who is excommunicated by the teacher is excommunicated for the student; excommunicated by the student is not excommunicated for the teacher. One who is excommunicated by the chief judge is excommunicated for the rabbi; excommunicated by the rabbi is not excommunicated for the chief judge. One who is excommunicated by the patriarch is excommunicated for everybody. So far if an ordained rabbi excommunicated; even a fellow? Let us hear from the following: A slave woman of Bar Pata passed by a synagogue. She saw a Bible teacher who hit a child more than necessary. He said to him, this man has to be put in the ban. He went and asked Rebbi Aḥa who told him, you have to worry about yourself. This implies that a person who does something unbecoming needs to be excommunicated. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was looking after figs at Barbarit. Robbers came and stole from them during the night. At the end he noticed them. He said to them, these people shall be excommunicated. They said to him, this person shall be excommunicated. He was worried about himself. He said, they owe me money; maybe souls? He went out after them, said to them: permit me. They said to him, if you permit us we shall permit you. This implies that if somebody excommunicated somebody unnecessarily and he in turn excommunicated him, his excommunication is excommunication.

HALAKHAH: “The decree of seven”, sandal and soap. “The decree of thirty,” mending, and pressing, and shaving. What is pressing? New pressed woolen garments, and pressed white linen garments. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on a Sabbath, he shaves on Friday. How is this possible? Explain it if he had been dragged away by a wild animal and they gave up hope to look after him. It was stated thus: When do you start to count for somebody who was dragged away by a wild animal? When they gave up hope to look after him. If they found separate limbs of him one counts when his head and most of his body had been found. Rebbi Jehudah says, spine and skull form the majority. Rebbi Abun said, explain it that the cover plate was laid Friday evening at the start of darkness. How is this possible? Rebbi Aḥa said, explain it if it was closed by a Gentile. Some wanted to say that he received a current notice on the Sabbath.

Something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30th day. Something happened [to one rabbi] and he shaved on the 31st day. Rebbi Zeriqan said, Rebbi Immi learned this from our Mishnah, as we have stated there: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day.” Rebbi Yose said, there after it happened, here from the start. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Isaac from Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30th day, following the Mishnah: “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30th day. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: If his eighth day fell on the Sabbath, he shaves Friday. If you say that they did permit not in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30th day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve. In addition, from what was stated: “For all deceased he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30th day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says that everybody agrees about the co-wife that he is guilty, if somebody from the market gave qiddushin to one of them and then the levir came and performed ḥalîṣah with her or had intercourse with her, did the qiddushin become invalid? If he performed ḥalîṣah with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were qiddushin validated retroactively? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with another man. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? “Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,” “get wise, my son, and make me happy”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! But there is one sister-in-law, here are two sisters-in-law. The prohibition of a single sister-in-law is different from that of two sisters-in-law!

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

MISHNAH: If somebody gave qiddushin to one of two sisters but he does not know to which one of them, he gives a bill of divorce to each. If he died and has one brother, that one has to perform ḥalîṣah with both sisters. If he had two [brothers], one performs ḥalîṣah and one may marry in levirate. If both married without asking, one does not remove [the women] from them.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gave qiddushin to one of two sisters but he does not know to which one of them, he gives a bill of divorce to each. If he died and has one brother, that one has to perform ḥalîṣah with both sisters.” Everywhere else you say “there cannot be ḥalîṣah after ḥalîṣah” but here you say so? There if it is certain, here one is in doubt. “If he had two [brothers], one performs ḥalîṣah and one may marry in levirate.” Everywhere else you say, in any case one asks him to perform the levirate one does not say perform ḥalîṣah; but here you say so? There if it is certain, here one is in doubt. “If both married without asking, one does not remove [the women] from them.”

MISHNAH: The obligation of levirate is on the oldest [brother] but if a younger one got the start on him, he acquired. If somebody is accused in matters of a slave woman and she was manumitted, or of a Gentile and she converted, he should not marry her but if he married her one does not remove her from him. If somebody is accused in matters of a married woman and she was forcibly divorced from [her husband], even if he married her he must divorce her.

MISHNAH: The obligation of levirate is on the oldest [brother] but if a younger one got the start on him, he acquired. If somebody is accused in matters of a slave woman and she was manumitted, or of a Gentile and she converted, he should not marry her but if he married her one does not remove her from him. If somebody is accused in matters of a married woman and she was forcibly divorced from [her husband], even if he married her he must divorce her.