suffices

For it suffices to know and to rest: for in rest the singers stand,

Mephibosheth also, Saul's grandson, met David, clothed in a sordid garment, and having his hair thick and neglected; for after David was fled away, he was in such grief that he had not polled his head, nor had he washed his clothes, as dooming himself to undergo such hardships upon occasion of the change-of the king's affairs. Now he had been unjustly calumniated to the king by Ziba, his steward. When he had saluted the king, and worshipped him, the king began to ask him why he did not go out of Jerusalem with him, and accompany him during his flight. He replied, that this piece of injustice was owing to Ziba; because, when he was ordered to get things ready for his going out with him, he took no care of it, but regarded him no more than if he had been a slave; "and, indeed, had I had my feet sound and strong, I had not deserted thee, for I could then have made use of them in my flight: but this is not all the injury that Ziba has done me, as to my duty to thee, my lord and master, but he hath calumniated me besides, and told lies about me of his own invention; but I know thy mind will not admit of such calumnies, but is righteously disposed, and a lover of truth, which it is also the will of God should prevail. For when thou wast in the greatest danger of suffering by my grandfather, and when, on that account, our whole family might justly have been destroyed, thou wast moderate and merciful, and didst then especially forget all those injuries, when, if thou hadst remembered them, thou hadst the power of punishing us for them; but thou hast judged me to be thy friend, and hast set me every day at thine own table; nor have I wanted any thing which one of thine own kinsmen, of greatest esteem with thee, could have expected." When he had said this, David resolved neither to punish Mephibosheth, nor to condemn Ziba, as having belied his master; but said to him, that as he had [before] granted all his estate to Ziba, because he did not come along with him, so he [now] promised to forgive him, and ordered that the one half of his estate should be restored to him. Whereupon Mephibosheth said, "Nay, let Ziba take all; it suffices me that thou hast recovered thy kingdom."

Bakers the sages did not obligate them to separate [from demai produce] any more than suffices for terumat maaser and for hallah. Grocers may not sell demai [produce]. All [merchants] who supply in large quantities may sell demai. Who are those who supply in large quantities? Those such as wholesalers and grain-sellers.

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid. If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid. Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice]. If he distances the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid.

Shammai says: “For all women [who begin to menstruate] it suffices [to reckon their impurity from] the time [of their discovering it].” And Hillel says: “[Their impurity is reckoned backwards] from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, even if this covers many days.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [they are considered impure for] the past twenty four hours when this lessens the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, and for the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination when this lessens the past twenty-four hours.” Any woman who has a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her impurity from] her set time. She who uses testing-cloths [when she has sexual relations], behold this is like an examination: it lessens either the period of the [past] twenty four hours or the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination.

Shammai says: “For all women [who begin to menstruate] it suffices [to reckon their impurity from] the time [of their discovering it].” And Hillel says: “[Their impurity is reckoned backwards] from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, even if this covers many days.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one, but [they are considered impure for] the past twenty four hours when this lessens the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination, and for the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination when this lessens the past twenty-four hours.” Any woman who has a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her impurity from] her set time. She who uses testing-cloths [when she has sexual relations], behold this is like an examination: it lessens either the period of the [past] twenty four hours or the period from the [last] examination to the [previous] examination.

If a person slaughtered a hundred wild animals in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a hundred birds in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a wild animal and a bird in one place, one covering suffices for both. Rabbi Judah says: if he slaughtered a wild animal he should cover up its blood and then slaughter the bird [and cover it up also]. If a person slaughtered and did not cover up the blood and another person saw it, the other must cover it up. If he covered it up and it became uncovered, he need not cover it up again. If the wind covered it up, he must cover it up again.

If a person slaughtered a hundred wild animals in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a hundred birds in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a wild animal and a bird in one place, one covering suffices for both. Rabbi Judah says: if he slaughtered a wild animal he should cover up its blood and then slaughter the bird [and cover it up also]. If a person slaughtered and did not cover up the blood and another person saw it, the other must cover it up. If he covered it up and it became uncovered, he need not cover it up again. If the wind covered it up, he must cover it up again.

If a person slaughtered a hundred wild animals in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a hundred birds in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a wild animal and a bird in one place, one covering suffices for both. Rabbi Judah says: if he slaughtered a wild animal he should cover up its blood and then slaughter the bird [and cover it up also]. If a person slaughtered and did not cover up the blood and another person saw it, the other must cover it up. If he covered it up and it became uncovered, he need not cover it up again. If the wind covered it up, he must cover it up again.

The size of a hole that renders an earthen vessel clean: If the vessel was made for food, the hole must be big enough for olives [to fall through]. If it was used for liquids it suffices for the hole to be big enough for liquids [to go through it]. And if it was used for both, we apply the greater stringency, that olives must be able to fall through.

A baking oven originally must be no less than four handbreadths [high] and what is left of it four handbreadths, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: this applies only to a large oven but in the case of a small one it originally can be [any height] and what is left is the greater part of it. [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. Rabbi Judah says: when a new oven has been heated to a degree that sufficed for the baking of spongy cakes in an old one.

A double stove: its original height must be no less than three fingerbreadths and what is left of it three fingerbreadths. [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of the lightest of eggs when scrambled and put in a saucepan. A single stove: if it was made for baking its prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking its prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. A stone that projects one handbreadth from a baking-oven or three fingerbreadths from a double stove is considered a connection. One that projects from a single stove, if it was made for baking, the prescribed size is the same as that for a baking-oven, and if it was made for cooking the prescribed size is the same as that for a double stove. Rabbi Judah said: they spoke of a ‘handbreadth’ only where the projection was between the oven and a wall. If two ovens were adjacent to one another, they allot one handbreadth to this one and one to the other and the remainder is clean.

If an oven was cut up by its width into rings that are each less than four handbreadths in height, it is clean. If he subsequently plastered it over with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. If he distanced the plastering, and sand or gravel was put between it and the oven sides of such an oven it has been said, "A menstruant as well as a clean woman may bake in it and it remains clean."

If one made two stoves of three stones and one of the outer ones was defiled the half of the middle one that serves the unclean one is unclean but the half of it that serves the clean one remains clean. If the clean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the unclean one. If the unclean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the clean one. Should the two outer ones become defiled, if the middle stone was large, each outer stone is allowed such a part of it as suffices for the support of a pot and the remainder is clean. But if it was small all of it is unclean. Should the middle stone be removed, if a big kettle can be set on the two outer stones they are unclean. If the middle stone is returned they all become clean again. If it was plastered with clay it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of an egg.

If one made two stoves of three stones and one of the outer ones was defiled the half of the middle one that serves the unclean one is unclean but the half of it that serves the clean one remains clean. If the clean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the unclean one. If the unclean one was removed, the middle one is regarded as completely transferred to the clean one. Should the two outer ones become defiled, if the middle stone was large, each outer stone is allowed such a part of it as suffices for the support of a pot and the remainder is clean. But if it was small all of it is unclean. Should the middle stone be removed, if a big kettle can be set on the two outer stones they are unclean. If the middle stone is returned they all become clean again. If it was plastered with clay it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the cooking of an egg.

Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination.

Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination.

How [does the rule that] it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow work? If she was sitting on a bed and was occupied with ritually clean objects and then she leaves [the bed] and then sees [blood flow] she is unclean but the objects are clean. Even though they have said that she conveys uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours [retroactively] she counts [the seven days of her menstruation] only from the time she observed the flow.

Rabbi Eliezer says: there are four types of women for whom it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from] the time [of their discovering the flow]. A virgin, A pregnant woman, A nursing woman; And an old woman. Rabbi Joshua says: I have only heard [the ruling applied to] a virgin, but the halakhah is in agreement with Rabbi Eliezer.

Who is regarded as "virgin"? Any woman who has never yet observed a blood flow, even if she is married. "A woman in pregnancy"? One whose fetus is notice. "A nursing woman"? Until she has weaned her child. If she gave her child to a nursing woman, if she weaned him, or if he died: Rabbi Meir says: she conveys uncleanness retroactively for twenty-four hours; But the sages say: it suffices for her [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observation of the flow].

Who is regarded as "an old woman"? Any woman over whom three "onot" have passed near the time of her old age. Rabbi Eliezer says: for any woman over whom have passed three onot it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observing a flow]. Rabbi Yose says: for a woman in pregnancy and a nursing woman over whom three onot have passed it suffices [to reckon their period of uncleanness from] the time of their [observation of the flow].

Who is regarded as "an old woman"? Any woman over whom three "onot" have passed near the time of her old age. Rabbi Eliezer says: for any woman over whom have passed three onot it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observing a flow]. Rabbi Yose says: for a woman in pregnancy and a nursing woman over whom three onot have passed it suffices [to reckon their period of uncleanness from] the time of their [observation of the flow].

And of what did they speak when they said that "it suffices [for them to reckon] their period of uncleanness from the time [of their discovering of the flow]"? [This refers to] the first observation, but after a second observation she defiles retroactively for a period of twenty-four hours. If she saw the first flow on account of an accident even it suffices for her even a subsequent observation [to reckon her uncleanness from] the time of her [observing of the flow].

And of what did they speak when they said that "it suffices [for them to reckon] their period of uncleanness from the time [of their discovering of the flow]"? [This refers to] the first observation, but after a second observation she defiles retroactively for a period of twenty-four hours. If she saw the first flow on account of an accident even it suffices for her even a subsequent observation [to reckon her uncleanness from] the time of her [observing of the flow].

Although though they said [that for a woman who has a regular period] it suffices to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observes a flow, she should nevertheless examine herself [regularly], except for a menstruant or one who is sitting over pure blood. She should also use testing-rags when she has marital intercourse except when she is sitting over pure blood or when she is a virgin whose blood is clean. And twice [daily] she should examine herself: in the morning and at the [evening] twilight, and also when she is about to have sexual relations. Priestly women are subject to an additional restriction [for they should examine themselves] when they are going to eat terumah. Rabbi Judah said: [these must examine themselves] also after they have concluded eating terumah.

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

For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. And these are the signs of a regular period: [if the woman] yawns, sneezes, feels pain at the top of her stomach or the bottom of her bowels, discharges mucus, or is seized by a kind of shivering, or any other similar symptoms. Any woman who established for herself [one of the symptoms] three times behold this is a regular period.

If a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [from impurity], and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is in a presumptive state of cleanness. If she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was unclean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [impurity], and after a time she examined herself and found that she was clean, she is in a presumptive state of uncleanness. [But] she conveys uncleanness for twenty-four hours retrospectively or during the time between the last and the previous examination. But if she had a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. Rabbi Judah says: Any woman who did not ascertain her separation [from impurity] is regarded as being in a presumptive state of uncleanness. But the sages say: even if she examined herself on the second day of her menstruation and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation, and after a time she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is regarded as being in a presumptive state of cleanness.

HALAKHAH: “If the judges estimated one sixth too little or too much,” etc. As you say for a private person, in real estate up to one third, in movables up to one sixth. And similarly, for Temple property, in real estate up to one sixth, in movables up to [one in] twelve. There, we have stated: “The estimation for orphans is thirty days, the estimation for Temple property sixty days, and one publicly announces mornings and evenings.” And why thirty? In order to empower the orphans. Why should they not announce longer? Up to thirty days you empower the orphans, more than that you diminish their power. Why do you not say that for Temple property? Temple property is different because each offer made is firm. Then they should announce forever! If suffices for the Temple that it should be twice that of a private person. Rebbi Yudan said, since you say that Temple property is different because each offer made is firm, this implies that if they find their estimation they do not continue but close the deal.

But why did you say in the previous case that one loose handbreadth suffices while here you say that there must be a strip of four handbreadths? There where there are two valid walls, a loose handbreadth suffices, but here where there are not two valid walls, if there is a strip of four handbreadths it is valid, otherwise, it is not [valid].

But why did you say in the previous case that one loose handbreadth suffices while here you say that there must be a strip of four handbreadths? There where there are two valid walls, a loose handbreadth suffices, but here where there are not two valid walls, if there is a strip of four handbreadths it is valid, otherwise, it is not [valid].

Kinofoth are different, since they are permanent. But, behold the case of one Sukkah above another, which is also permanent; and Shmuel nevertheless said, ‘As its validity so is its invalidity’? They said: In the latter case, [when it is a question] of invalidating a Sukkah, [the upper one must be ten [handbreadths] high, but here, [where it is a question] of making a tent, even less than ten [handbreadths suffices] also to constitute a tent.

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid. If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice

Casual eating and drinking are permitted outside the sukkah. How much is considered casual eating? R. Joseph said, [The volume of] two or three eggs. Abaye said to him: But sometimes this suffices for [a whole meal for] a man, and then it would be a set meal? ... Rather Abaye said: as much as a student and then goes into the learning session.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: [The blessing is recited over] the Sukkah for seven days and over the lulav for one day. What is the reason? For the Sukkah which is a Toraitic commandment [the blessing must be recited all] seven [days]; in the case of the lulav which is only a rabbinical commandment [a blessing on] one day suffices.