splits

One who put his olives in a basket that they might be softened so that they will be easy to press, they become susceptible to uncleanness; [If he put them in a basket] to be softened so that they may be salted: Bet Shammai says: they become susceptible. Bet Hillel says: they do not become susceptible. One who splits his olives with unwashed hands, he causes them to be unclean.

What is dusk? Rebbi Tanḥuma said (it is comparable) to a drop of blood on the tip of a sword. The drop splits here and there, that is dusk. What is dusk? From after sundown the time a man needs to walk half a mil, the words of Rebbi Neḥemiah. Rebbi Yose said: dusk is a moment and the sages could not determine it.

Is has been stated: The Tree of Life is wide a parcourse of 500 years. Rebbi Yehudah ben Rebbi Ilaï said: not only its crown but even its stem.All the splitting of primeval waters splits under it since (Ps. 1:3) “He shall be like a tree planted on split waters.” It has been stated: The Tree of Life is one sixtieth of the Garden. (Gen. 2:10) “And a river originated in Eden to irrigate the Garden.” The remainder of a kur is a triple qab, a sixtieth. The remainder of Africa is Egypt, a sixtieth. We find that it is said that Egypt can be traversed in 40 days. Black Africa can be traversed in slightly more than seven years. But the teachers say [the sky is determined] by the days of the patriarchs (Deut. 11:21) “like the days of the sky over the earth.” And just as the sky over the earth is at a distance of a way of 500 years so between one sky and the next is a way of 500 years and its thickness is a way of 500 years. Why did you see fit to say the thickness of the sky is a way of 500 years? Rebbi Abun said (Gen. 1:6): “There shall exist a spread-sky within the water.” The spread-sky shall be in the middle. Rav said: the sky was wet on the first day and jelled on the second day. Rav said: “There shall exist a spread-sky”: the sky shall strengthen, the sky shall jell, the sky shall solidify, the sky shall be spread. Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi said: The sky (רקיע) shall be made like a piece of cloth, just as it is said (Ex. 39:3) “They stretched (וירקעו) out the gold sheets.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. But the words of the Sages are: From a Jew, he splits; from a Gentile, he gives heave. We have stated: “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and then gives to him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave, I have no right to it, but he distributes and puts it before him.”

All categories of work they learned from the Tabernacle. What kind of ploughing was in the Tabernacle? They ploughed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plough to become liable? Rebbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rebbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout. There, we have stated: “Two green melon seeds make liable, two squash seeds, two Egyptian bean seeds.” It was stated, two Median wheat kernels. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since wheat was so much appreciated they treated it like garden vegetables that are not eaten. For everything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing: One who digs, who cuts, who inserts, who deposits dung, who hoes, who fertilizes, who sweeps, who sprinkles, who splits blocks, who clears forests, who sets fire to reed thickets or palm swamps, and following Rebbi Zeˋira a water canal prepares its banks for sowing, who removes stones, who builds terraces, who fills the rifts under olive trees, and who makes depressions for vines, and for anything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing.

This linen weaver with a mallet because of threshing; with a roller because of grinding; with a winnowing shovel because of winnowing; with a spoon because of selecting; if he splits because of using a hatchet; if he tears out because of cutting; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

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

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

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

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.

The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,] he splits it and then dedicates. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.

The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,] he splits it and then dedicates. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.

“Neither with a hatchet.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they are saying, one splits with a hatchet. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one splits with a hatchet. Samuel said, practice follows him who said, one splits with a hatchet. It was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Shamua, the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit.

“Neither with a hatchet.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they are saying, one splits with a hatchet. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one splits with a hatchet. Samuel said, practice follows him who said, one splits with a hatchet. It was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Shamua, the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit.

“Neither with a hatchet.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they are saying, one splits with a hatchet. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one splits with a hatchet. Samuel said, practice follows him who said, one splits with a hatchet. It was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Shamua, the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit.

“Nor with a sickle.” There are Tannaim who state that one splits, and [there are Tannaim who state that one does not split. Rav Ḥisda said,] he who said one splits, with a hand-held sickle; he who says one does not split, with a scythe.

“Nor with a sickle.” There are Tannaim who state that one splits, and [there are Tannaim who state that one does not split. Rav Ḥisda said,] he who said one splits, with a hand-held sickle; he who says one does not split, with a scythe.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments. But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Perita objected before Rebbi Ze`ira, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day. Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked before Rebbi Jonah; was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses?

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments. But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Perita objected before Rebbi Ze`ira, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day. Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked before Rebbi Jonah; was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses?

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments. But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Perita objected before Rebbi Ze`ira, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day. Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked before Rebbi Jonah; was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses?

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments. But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Perita objected before Rebbi Ze`ira, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day. Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked before Rebbi Jonah; was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses?

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments. But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Perita objected before Rebbi Ze`ira, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day. Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked before Rebbi Jonah; was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses?

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments [But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Protos objected before Rebbi Jonah, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day.] Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked, was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses. Should there not be 23? Three for ten, three for ten, and one three.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments [But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Protos objected before Rebbi Jonah, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day.] Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked, was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses. Should there not be 23? Three for ten, three for ten, and one three.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments [But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Protos objected before Rebbi Jonah, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day.] Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked, was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses. Should there not be 23? Three for ten, three for ten, and one three.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments [But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Protos objected before Rebbi Jonah, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day.] Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked, was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses. Should there not be 23? Three for ten, three for ten, and one three.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he had no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate? Rebbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rebbi Yose: A Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew. If he fixed the price before he measured, the proceeds are permitted; if he measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal rate, even if he measured before he fixed the price, it should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

HALAKHAH: “Estimation and determination of money’s worth,” etc. One does not say that a cow be compensated for by a stole, but one appraises all property in court. “Money’s worth,” this teaches that the court only appraises mortgageable property. But if the person suffering damage appropriated movables, one appraises those. “By a court”, this teaches that one only appraises in court. “Based on testimony”, for one only appraises by testimony. “Of free persons of the Covenant”, this excludes Gentiles, and slaves, and persons disqualified for testimony. “Women are under the rule of torts”; since the verse speaks only of men, it is necessary to include women: Rebbi Ismael stated, “these are the laws which you shall put before them” “And sometimes both the person who causes and the one who suffers the damage pay”; they pay half the damage. From here, that one splits the damage; each one loses half the value of the damage.

There, we have stated: “Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Abun said, the statement looks reasonable if they bought a precious stone because he can say to him, without my ten denars you could not have bought anything. But anything that usually is split {smaller units that can be bought with less capital} one adds together and splits {proportionally to the capital invested}. Rebbi Eleazar says, even things that usually are split [are divided evenly], because he can say to him, you have a lot of merchandise and you have difficulty selling it. I have little merchandise and turn it over rapidly and make as much as you do. So far if his merchandise was here. What if his merchandise was in Rome? He can say to him, by the time you went to Rome, I turn mine over rapidly here and make as much as you do.

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.

HALAKHAH: “If he said to him, lend me,” etc. “Somebody exchanged a cow,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this contradicts Symmachos who says that in all cases of doubt one splits evenly. Rebbi La said, explain it if both of them say, I am certain. Rebbi Yose explained, if both of them say, I am certain, that is what Rebbi Joḥanan refered to when he said, this contradicts Symmachos’s words.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat, the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement), there is nothing similar in later generations. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat, the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement), there is nothing similar in later generations. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday does not have to mention the New Moon. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said, it was stated thus: “The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday in the morning, the House of Shammai say, he prays eight [benedictions], but the House of Hillel say seven. For musaf, the House of Shammai say ten, but the House of Hillel say nine.” Should he not say eleven? Rebbi Yose said, where do they disagree? In a matter which needs a separate benediction. But here even on a weekday he simply includes it. So he should mention it in “Service”. Rebbi Yose asked, since the two he-goats of New Year’s day come because of the New Moon, why do you say that he does not have to mention the New Moon? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal not ask correctly? As it was stated: “The two lambs of Pentecost and the two he-goats of New Year’s Day.” If the first atoned, what does the second atone for? For impurity that happened between them. Is that not Rebbi Simeon’s? And Rebbi Simeon splits atoning. But if both of them were for the New Moon? Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do that, since it is written, in addition to the elevation offering of the month. In addition, from what we have stated, “twelve for the twelve months of the year.” A patrician stood before the Ark and did not mention the New Moon; they praised him. Rav Hoshaia asked: think of it, if they slaughtered both of them simultaneously? What impurity happened between them? Rebbi Bun said, if all of Israel are proper, would they not bring what the Torah prescribed for them?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sold his wine to a Non-Jew,” etc. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he has no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate? Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, a Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal price, even if he measured before he fixed the price should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted.

But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting? Surely since the latter part [of the baraita] states: They said to R. Meir, ‘Do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split, with the result that he drank untithed [wine] retroactively?’ And he answered them, ‘When the wineskin splits’, it follows [does it not] that R. Judah is concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?

[No!] There it is R. Judah who says to R. Meir, "As for myself I do not accept the principle of bererah, but according to you who do accept the principle of bererah, do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split?’ And the latter answered, ‘When the wineskin splits’.