southerner

Rebbi Jacob the Southerner in the name of R. Yehudah ben Pazi: One star (visible) certainly daytime. Two are night. Does he not allow for a period of doubt? He has a doubt between star and star.

What is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah does not need a benediction after the first night of the holiday, lulab needs a benediction all seven days. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting and saying, what is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah applies both nights and days, lulab applies only during daytime. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner objected: But the study of Torah applies by night as by day? How is this? Sukkah will end; the study of Torah, it is impossible that it should ever end.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner said: There are three things of which too little or too much is bad and average is good: sour dough, salt, and refusal. The first time he refuses, the second time he hesitates, the third time he runs and comes. Rebbi Ḥuna was sitting in a synagogue. The organizer came and importuned one to go up and he did not accept it. At the end, that one came to Rebbi Eleazar and said to him: My master should not be angry with me; I did not go up because I was not fully awake. He said to him: I am not mad at you but at the one who importuned.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner said: Three things did the earthly court decree and the Heavenly Court agreed with them, and they are the following: The ban on Jericho, the Esther scroll, and greeting people using the Name. The ban on Jericho (Jos. 7:11): “Israel sinned.” But was not Joshua the one who decreed it? This certainly implies that the Heavenly Court agreed with them. The Esther scroll (Esth. 9:27): “They confirmed and accepted, etc.” Rav said, “accepted” is written in singular; this implies that they accepted. Greeting people using the Name (Ruth 2:4): “Lo, Boaz came from Bethlehem.” And from where that the Heavenly court agreed with them? The verse says (Jud. 6:12): “The Eternal is with you, o hero!” Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Also tithes, as it is said (Mal. 3:10): “Bring all tithes, etc.” What is: “ Until ‘without enough?’ ” Rebbi Yose bar Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The thing about which it is impossible to say “enough”, that is blessing. Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Chelbo and Rebbi Abba bar Ilaï in the name of Rav: Until your lips will wear out saying, we have enough blessings, we have enough blessings.

“If one gave an amphora as heave and it turned out to be uncovered, or a water melon and it turned out to have holes, it is heave and heave should be given a second time.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They forbade only when it was found to have a hole; therefore, from the start it is forbidden to give it as heave. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this reasonable only if they saw it making the hole? He said to him: Would one know whether it poured poison into it? The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference between that and the impure? He said to them: The impure is unchanged, so is that which caused impurity. But here, it is dust.

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: If it became impure outside of Jerusalem and was brought inside, it should not leave lest one say, we saw Second Tithe entering Jerusalem and leaving? Leaving is publicized, redemption is not publicized.

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rebbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other?

Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that it is forbidden. How is it forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is forbidden from the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, it is forbidden from their words. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis support us, we have stated there: “One may not bring cereal offerings, first fruits, and cereal offerings accompanying animal sacrifices before the ‘omer and if he brought they are invalid.” And Rebbi Joshua the Southerner, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they taught that only for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth. Therefore, on the sixteenth if he transgressed and brought, it is acceptable. If you would say it is forbidden from the Torah there should be no difference; whether he brought on the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth, if he transgressed and brought, it should be invalid. In addition from the following, as Rebbi Zeïra said: Since Rav grew up with the opinions of the sons of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, he holds with them. If you say that it is forbidden from the Torah, he would follow Rebbi Joḥanan!

Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Rebbi Simlai the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel accepted this and ate. Rav did not eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder. He answered him, when I still was there I knew who complained about it, Rebbi Simlai the Southerner. He told him, did he say it in the name of himself? No, in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate.

Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Rebbi Simlai the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel accepted this and ate. Rav did not eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder. He answered him, when I still was there I knew who complained about it, Rebbi Simlai the Southerner. He told him, did he say it in the name of himself? No, in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate.

HALAKHAH: When she was doing it. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner said before Rebbi (Yasa) [Yose] in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A weaver’s beam, Rebbi declares not liable, but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, he is liable. Rebbi said to him, so I heard from your father. He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served him sitting. But was Rebbi the student of Rebbi Simeon (bar) [ben] Yoḥai? Was he not the student of Rebbi Jacob bar (Qodshai) [Qorshai]? But so he must have said to him, He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served your teacher sitting. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon came to the house of assembly, Rebbi’s face darkened. His father told him, it is correct so, for he is a lion son of a lion, but you are a lion son of a jackal. When (Rebbi Eleazar) [he] died, Rebbi sent to ask his wife in marriage. She said to him, a vessel which was used in holiness should be used in a profane way?

HALAKHAH: “One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rebbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for him who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for him who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it would slip off, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it would slip off, would he notice? Rebbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rebbi Aḥa. (They said to him) [He said to them], it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice in case it slipped off you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice in case it slipped off not so much more? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One may make an eruv with demay, and with First Tithe.” Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, is our Mishnah not following the House of Shammai? As we have stated, “of demay, the House of Shammai declare invalid but the House of Hillel declare valid. Of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is valid.”

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

Rebbi Abba asked, is it the same in the matter of partitions? How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath already had started in prohibition. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath already had started in permission. The strength of Rebbi Abba is from the following: Any Sabbath which started in permission is permitted, in prohibition is prohibited, except one who cedes rights; and he would say, except one who cedes or leases. May one lease rights from the owner of a hostelry? Rebbi Ḥinena and Rebbi Jonathan went to Ḥammat Gader. They said, we shall wait until the Elders of the South arrive here. There came Rebbi (Peres) {Nathan] the Southerner; they asked him and he permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, since the Gentile may remove us, we did not do anything. Simeon bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked, then our houses are not ours? Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Boethos: Our houses are not ours, to dwell with us; but they cannot force us to leave; but in a hostelry they remove us.

It was stated: “One may use anything to reduce, stones, bricks, a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder if it was fastened.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even if it was not fastened. But was it not stated “if it was fastened”? Rebbi Abba said, if it was dedicated for this purpose. Rebbi La instructed following this Tanna, only if it was fastened. Both Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, one in the name of Mar Uqban, and one in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: It is necessary that between two steps there be less than three [hand-breadths] and each be four hand-breadths wide; the posts complement the four. Yasa said, a block in which he carved steps reduces. In any case, the posts do not complement ten; it is like a high step. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: It must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as separate place. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The step which reduces from ten must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as a separate place. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked: If one brought a board of seven hand-breadths and raised it less than three from the ground, is it permitted? There you are saying, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed, and here you should be saying, everything less than four [handbreadths] is considered closed. If you want to object, object to the following: If one brought a wall of slightly more than four hand-breadths and raised it less than two hand-breadths from the ground, should it come following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four hand-breadths, on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space?

Rebbi Simlai came to Rebbi Jonathan. He said to him, teach me homiletics. He answered him, I have a tradition from my forefathers not to teach homiletics either to a Babylonian or to a Southerner, since they are gross in spirit and have little learning. And you are from Nahardea and live in the South. He said to him, tell me this one thing, what is the difference between “for its purpose and not for its purpose” and “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”? He answered him, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, the disqualification is intrinsic. “For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, the disqualification is of others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, you cannot pick out the disqualified from the qualified. [“For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified.] “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ.

Rebbi Eleazar asked, do bulls and he-goats to be burned cause impurity of garments without preparation and without impurity since at the end they become sources of severe impurity? Samuel from Cappadocia objected, then they should make their parts impure. So only after they were taken away. And even if you are saying before they were taken away, parallel to the following: purifying water does not make anything impure to make itself impure in return. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, does not a carcass of a pure bird make food impure without preparation, without impurity, since at the end it becomes a source of severe impurity? Rebbi Yose said, the carcass of a pure bird has no enclosure; these have an enclosure. Rebbi Mana said, the carcass of a pure bird has an enclosure; the human is its enclosure. If it were not so, if he brought a dog, clothed it, and fed it the carcass of a pure bird, would it not make the garments impure in its palate? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, the enclosure of the carcass of a pure bird is everywhere; the enclosure of those is outside of Jerusalem.

Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, is our Mishnah not following the House of Shammai? As we have stated, “of demay, the House of Shammai disqualify but the House of Hillel qualify. Of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is valid.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, does the Mishnah contradict Rebbi Dosa? For “Rebbi Dosa said, in the morning a person has to say, everything which the poor will collect today between the sheaves is ownerless property. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, because we are not responsible for cheaters.” There you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, but here you are saying, a declaration of abandonment under duress is abandonment. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he declares ownerless by his own will, here he declares ownerless against his own will. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, this is correct. You have to know that this is so since already his replacement is in his hand.

They wanted to say, if he transgressed and brought it is qualified. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner stated before Rebbi Jonah that uncovered water and wine are disqualified from the altar. What is the reason? And one sheep from 200, from the drink of Israel, from something permitted to Israel. So far water, wine? Rebbi Sabbatai said, which gladdens God and men.

HALAKHAH: “How is the order of the fast days,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, why does one move to the town plaza? To say, we are considered as if exiled before You. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because they prayed in privacy and were not answered; therefore they went public and were publicized. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, why does one bring the Ark to the town plaza? To say that we had one precious vessel and our sins caused it to become debased. The Elder Rebbi Ḥuna of Sepphoris said, our forefathers covered it with gold and we covered it with ashes. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said, why does one blow horns? To say, we are considered as if bellowing like animals before You. Rebbi Levi said, and why does one visit graves? To say, we are considered like dead before You. Rebbi Tanḥuma says, all of this is included. If we are guilty to die there are the dead, if exile there is exile, if hunger there is hunger.

Rebbi used to ordain double ordinations. If they were worthy of it they were continuing; if not they were disappearing. When he was to die, he commanded his son; he said, do not act thus but ordain all of them together, and ordain Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina first. Why did he not ordain him himself? Rebbi Derosa said, because the Sepphoreans complained about him. And because of complaints one acts? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, because he corrected him in public. Rebbi was sitting, stating: Their refugees will remember Me, on the mountains like valley doves, all of them cooing. He said to him, all of them cooing. He asked him, where did you study this text? He said, before the Babylonian Rav Hamnuna. He said to him, if you will descend there, tell him that he should ordain you as Ḥakham. He understood that he never would be ordained in his lifetime. After he died, his son wanted to ordain him, but he did not accept to be ordained unless Rebbi Ephes the Southerner was ordained before him. There was there an old man who said, if Ḥanina precedes me, I have to be the second; if Rebbi Ephes the Southerner precedes me, I have to be the second. Rebbi Ḥanina accepted to be ordained as third.

Rebbi used to ordain double ordinations. If they were worthy of it they were continuing; if not they were disappearing. When he was to die, he commanded his son; he said, do not act thus but ordain all of them together, and ordain Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina first. Why did he not ordain him himself? Rebbi Derosa said, because the Sepphoreans complained about him. And because of complaints one acts? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, because he corrected him in public. Rebbi was sitting, stating: Their refugees will remember Me, on the mountains like valley doves, all of them cooing. He said to him, all of them cooing. He asked him, where did you study this text? He said, before the Babylonian Rav Hamnuna. He said to him, if you will descend there, tell him that he should ordain you as Ḥakham. He understood that he never would be ordained in his lifetime. After he died, his son wanted to ordain him, but he did not accept to be ordained unless Rebbi Ephes the Southerner was ordained before him. There was there an old man who said, if Ḥanina precedes me, I have to be the second; if Rebbi Ephes the Southerner precedes me, I have to be the second. Rebbi Ḥanina accepted to be ordained as third.

If it spread while in quarantine, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “From the sufferer from skin disease; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds, (should not) [is it not logical that] one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure, one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity] depends on the count of his days. So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day. One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

HALAKHAH: “One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy.” Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Because a strip of Samaritans interrupts. But did we not state, “the second best is Regev in Transjordan”? Without this would not a strip of Samaritans interrupt? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it if he brings whole olives and pounds them there. And in Judea one is trustworthy about the wine but not about the flasks. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Southerner who said, I brought this from Galilee is trustworthy; a Galilean who said, I brought this from Judea is not trustworthy.

Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah. One should have stated it for the rabbis! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers,” etc. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name ofNehorai: The reason of the House of Shammai, “the outside wife of the deceased shall not belong to a strange man,” the “outer one” should not be another man’s. It turns out that the House of Shammai hold like those Samaritans who perform levirate with the betrothed but remove the married, for they explain “outside” as “the outer one.” How do the House of Shammai confirm “when he has no child”? Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, “when he has no child” from the married one, “the outer one shall not belong outside to a strange man.” He said to him, will not the Samaritans love you that you confirm their interpretations! Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: I told the learned Samaritans, what did cause you to err? That you did not explain following Rebbi Neḥemiah, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: Anything which needs a ל as a prefix but did not get it, we give it a ה at the end, e. g., to the outside חוּצָה, to Se‘ir שְׂעִירָה, to Succoth סוּכּוֹתָה. They objected to Rebbi Neḥemiah, is it not written: “The wicked shall return to the pit לִשְׁאוֹלָה.” Rabba bar Zabda said, to the lowest living space in Sheol.

Rav said: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother. His son’s wife is biblical. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

“They bring one sacrifice of impurity and one of purity.” That is, if they are at the end of thirty days. But if one is in the middle of thirty days, one has to wait till the end of thirty days. If both of them were nezirim for thirty days. But if one was a nazir for thirty and the other a nazir for 100, one has to wait for 100. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: If one of them became impure during these days, what is the rule? He said to him, like one who has to seek out a person from the general public.

Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Could they not arrange something for his wine? He said to him, “the nazir shaves at the gate of the Tent of Meeting;” if he is able to appear at the gate of the Tent of Meeting. This excludes him who is unable to appear at the gate of the Tent of Meeting.

HALAKHAH: “They said to him, did not the teacher use to say,” etc. Rebbi Yose the Southerner said before Rebbi Jonah: Would it not have been necessary to state, if it is so then those of the Days of the New Moon could be brought on the Day of Atonement since one increases holiness but one does not diminish; but those of the Day of Atonement cannot be brought on the Days of the New Moon since one does not diminish holiness. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun explained it by another explanation: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon, but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more? And so “Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten. And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession, inspired by he shall confess on it.

Samuel says, the oath does not move away from between them. If the lender swears, he swears and takes. But if the borrower swears, the other will present the pledge. “Who has to swear? The one who holds the pledge.” Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, about the first part: “ ‘You loaned me a tetradrachma on it but it was worth two,’ and the other says ‘no, but I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a tetradrachma;’ he is not liable. ‘You loaned me a tetradrachma on it,’ ” etc. “And the other says, ‘I do not know’.” Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: You do not know, the other knows. Rebbi Joshua [the Southerner] asked before Rebbi Jonah: There you say, you do not know, the other knows; but here you say so? There is desecration of an oath, here there is no desecration of an oath.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed about it. Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Simlai the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel said, true! Rav did not accept on himself to eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder. He answered him, when I still was there I knew who complained about it, Simlai the Southerner. He told him, he said it in the name of himself, not in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed about it. Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Simlai the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel said, true! Rav did not accept on himself to eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder. He answered him, when I still was there I knew who complained about it, Simlai the Southerner. He told him, he said it in the name of himself, not in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate.

Rebbi Mattania said: Greatness cannot atone (until his greatness becomes known to him) [unless his error became known to him.] If he ate half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and half the volume of an olive after he was appointed, even in one oblivion he is not liable. A doubt of half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and a doubt of half the volume of an olive after he was appointed: he brings a suspended reparation offering. Do we find anything where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable? We do not find this! If he ate the volume of two olives, the true nature of one of them became known to him, the other remained for him in doubt. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: As you take it, if he ate forbidden fat, it atoned. [If he ate permitted fat, it atoned.] Rebbi Yose said, anything which convinced him to bring a suspended reparation offering, the knowledge of the doubt establishes his transgression. So we find a case where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable.