supports

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This has been said for idol worship. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this has been said for things forbidden for usufruct. Rav Ḥisda said, this has been said for minimal quantities. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable for a purification sacrifice. There are Tannaim who state, a minimal amount. He who said he is liable for a purification sacrifice supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said a minimal amount supports Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: For example, the wad which she prepared for her menstrual period.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This has been said for idol worship. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this has been said for things forbidden for usufruct. Rav Ḥisda said, this has been said for minimal quantities. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable for a purification sacrifice. There are Tannaim who state, a minimal amount. He who said he is liable for a purification sacrifice supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said a minimal amount supports Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: For example, the wad which she prepared for her menstrual period.

HALAKHAH: 7. “A potsherd (of any size) to put between one half brick,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may use it to sanctify; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Eleazar asked, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why may one not use it to sanctify? Because it is impervious to impurity . But are not vessels made of cow dung, stone vessels, earthen vessels impervious to impurity and one may use them to sanctify! But because it does not contain a quartarius. But does not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree that one may sanctify using an arbitrarily small complete clay vessel? It is that the only reason is that it does not have the appellation “vessel”. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan. It is not enough to disqualify the body but one may use it to sanctify? But this follows Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said, also the most minute amount of clay vessel.” Did not Rebbi Yose say this only for a complete one, and do we not deal here with a broken one? What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated supports Rebbi Joḥanan; what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

HALAKHAH: 7. “A potsherd (of any size) to put between one half brick,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may use it to sanctify; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, one may not use it to sanctify. Rebbi Eleazar asked, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why may one not use it to sanctify? Because it is impervious to impurity . But are not vessels made of cow dung, stone vessels, earthen vessels impervious to impurity and one may use them to sanctify! But because it does not contain a quartarius. But does not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree that one may sanctify using an arbitrarily small complete clay vessel? It is that the only reason is that it does not have the appellation “vessel”. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan. It is not enough to disqualify the body but one may use it to sanctify? But this follows Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said, also the most minute amount of clay vessel.” Did not Rebbi Yose say this only for a complete one, and do we not deal here with a broken one? What Rebbi Ḥiyya stated supports Rebbi Joḥanan; what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

HALAKHAH: 3. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, folding by two persons is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On the Sabbath, two together may not fold. If one folds on a footstool it is as if two persons were folding. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for eating and drinking. Since this mouth [is bothersome] (is smelling), they permitted him to be occupied with words of the Torah. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for being occupied with words of the Torah. A baraita supports either one of them: What does one do? Either he sits down and eats or he sits and studies words of the Torah. One verse says, it is a Sabbath for the Eternal, and another verse says, an assembly for the Eternal, your God. How is that? Give part of it to the study of Torah and part to eat and to drink. Rebbi Abbahu said, a Sabbath for the Eternal, rest like the Eternal. Since the Eternal rested from saying, you also should rest from saying.

Then at a place where there is a House of Study one should not read, at a place where there is no House of Study one should read? You only have what Rebbi Neḥemiah stated, as Rebbi Neḥemiah stated, why may one only read Hagiographa after afternoon prayers? Because of persons’ documents. Because if you were telling him that it is permitted, then he would say, there is nothing wrong if I would occupy myself with my documents. Since you are telling him that it is forbidden, then he will say, since Hagiographa are forbidden, so much more private documents. This implies that Mishnah has precedence over Bible. This supports what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, as Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good; he who studies Mishnah is occupied in an endeavor which deserves reward; he who studies Talmud could not endeavor anything greater than this, always a person should pursue Mishnah more than Talmud. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this was before Rebbi incorporated most of the Mishnah in the Talmud, but since Rebbi incorporated most of the Mishnah in the Talmud, a person should pursue Talmud more than Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: What is a dragged bolt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rebbi Jehudah . There came Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rebbi Yannai [the father-in-law of] Rebbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rebbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.

MISHNAH: One does all that is needed for a corpse, one anoints, and rinses, on condition that none of his limbs be moved. One takes away the pillow under him and lays him on sand so he can wait. One ties the jaw, not to lift it but lest it descend. Similarly, if a beam broke one supports it by a bench or the long logs of a bed-frame, not to lift it but lest it descend. One does not close the eyelids of a corpse on the Sabbath, nor on a weekday at the moment of death. Anybody who closes the eyes at the moment of death is spilling blood.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: “Each fills his pail and feeds from his side.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when we were sitting before Menaḥem we used to say, lest you say that he is not like one taking down tents but one who supports tents, for if the straw was flattened he supports it by his pail. Rav Hoshaia asked: What if he used a sheet and supported it by a chair? It is meant here temporarily, but it is meant there for permanence.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: “Each fills his pail and feeds from his side.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when we were sitting before Menaḥem we used to say, lest you say that he is not like one taking down tents but one who supports tents, for if the straw was flattened he supports it by his pail. Rav Hoshaia asked: What if he used a sheet and supported it by a chair? It is meant here temporarily, but it is meant there for permanence.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He who puts on tefillin in the night transgresses a positive commandment. What is the reason? You shall keep this law …, from day to day; “days” not nights. But Rebbi Abbahu sat studying at night with his tefillin on his head! He put them on the side; they were like a deposit in his keeping. Some want to say, he only meant “not to put them on,” but when they were on him during daytime it would be permitted. Some want to say that the obligation is until the foot is disappearing from public places. Some want to say, let us hear it from the following: It shall be for you a sign, when you need it for a sign, but not holiday or Sabbaths that are all sign. But is it not written from day to day? You have only what Rebbi Joḥanan said: Everything that is not clear one supports from many places.

What is a dragged bolt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me one of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me one of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rebbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rebbi Yannai the father-in-law of Rebbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rebbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. Sour bread shall not be eaten, to make the feeder equal to the eater. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan .

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. Sour bread shall not be eaten, to make the feeder equal to the eater. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan .

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. Sour bread shall not be eaten, to make the feeder equal to the eater. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan .

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what did you see to say that evening is later; could we not say that between the evenings is later? But it must be: The one about which is written between the evenings at sundown shall be delayed more than one about which is written only between the evenings. The formulation of a baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “There you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening. In the evening you are slaughtering, at sundown you are eating, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting.” There are Tannaim who state: “In the evening you are eating, at sundown you are slaughtering, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting.”

“How is ‘those who cannot eat it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a sick person, in the name of an old person, who cannot eat the volume of an olive. How about ‘those who did not subscribe to it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a different group.” This implies that a baby can be counted to disqualify. This implies that if one was on a distant trip and he slaughtered it in this person’s name, it is disqualified. This implies that it supports the Southerners, since the Southerners are saying, one thinks about parts which were lost as if they were in existence. This implies that if one slaughtered so that half of the group should eat, it is disqualified. Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it that all of them were sick. He told him, then one should have stated, “in the name of disqualified members of the group.” He said to him, if there were qualified people, but he slaughtered in the name of the disqualified.

HALAKHAH: One verse says, but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says, and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be, etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

There are Tannaim who state: the diadem propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.

There are Tannaim who state: the diadem propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged. Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition. Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel. What did they do [at travel time]? They put a wine-cooler over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said, they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged. Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition. Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel. What did they do [at travel time]? They put a wine-cooler over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said, they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged. Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition. Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel. What did they do [at travel time]? They put a wine-cooler over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said, they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged. Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition. Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel. What did they do [at travel time]? They put a wine-cooler over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said, they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated.

HALAKHAH: [He comes to his bull, etc.] We have stated: “He comes to the bull and the he-goat to be burned.” There are Tannaim who state, the High Priest comes to read. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, the verse supports our Mishnah: He who sends the he-goat to Azazel shall wash his garments. What is written next? And the purification bull and the purification he-goat. Rebbi Mana said, it may be interpreted even following the Tanna of the baraita. If a person moves from Tiberias to Sepphoris, while he still is in Tiberias do people say, he dwells in Sepphoris.

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

“Rebbi Jehudah said:, testified” etc. Rebbi Berekhiah said, the reason of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is, this they shall give, twelve tribes shall give. Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav Hamnuna: So answer the Sages to Rebbi Jehudah. A private purification sacrifice is let to die; a public purification sacrifice is not left to die. A private flour offering is brought totally, but no public flour offering is brought totally. This is difficult, how can one argue with a person about something with which he does not agree? “For no public purification sacrifice is left to die; Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall be left to die.” And he objects to them, are these not private flour offerings? They answer him, from the moment when it is delivered to the public, it is treated as a public offering. It is written, everybody being counted, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, the other one said, everyone being counted shall give. He who said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, supports Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai; he who said, everyone being counted shall give, supports Ben Kovri.

“Rebbi Jehudah said:, testified” etc. Rebbi Berekhiah said, the reason of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is, this they shall give, twelve tribes shall give. Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav Hamnuna: So answer the Sages to Rebbi Jehudah. A private purification sacrifice is let to die; a public purification sacrifice is not left to die. A private flour offering is brought totally, but no public flour offering is brought totally. This is difficult, how can one argue with a person about something with which he does not agree? “For no public purification sacrifice is left to die; Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall be left to die.” And he objects to them, are these not private flour offerings? They answer him, from the moment when it is delivered to the public, it is treated as a public offering. It is written, everybody being counted, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, the other one said, everyone being counted shall give. He who said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, supports Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai; he who said, everyone being counted shall give, supports Ben Kovri.

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.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish says, two arks were travelling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written: Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp. The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god? A word which shows that they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish. Saul said to Aḥiya: present God’s Ark. But was the Ark not at Qiryat Ye`arim? What do the rabbis do with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem’ Another verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish: The Ark, Israel, and Jehudah, dwell in huts. Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish says, two arks were travelling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written: Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp. The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god? A word which shows that they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish. Saul said to Aḥiya: present God’s Ark. But was the Ark not at Qiryat Ye`arim? What do the rabbis do with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem’ Another verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish: The Ark, Israel, and Jehudah, dwell in huts. Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish says, two arks were travelling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written: Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp. The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god? A word which shows that they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish. Saul said to Aḥiya: present God’s Ark. But was the Ark not at Qiryat Ye`arim? What do the rabbis do with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem’ Another verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish: The Ark, Israel, and Jehudah, dwell in huts. Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.

MISHNAH: If one supports his sukkah by the frame of the couch it is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it cannot stand by itself it is disqualified.

Rebbi Levi said, all watches were given in the South. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “if one day fell between them.” Rebbi Judah ben Titus in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, the verse supports this Tanna: and now what do you have ready, give in my hands five breads or what is available. But was Aḥimelekh from the outgoing watch?

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Does this follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle neither with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. Rebbi Yose said, the language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a ṭerefa are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a ṭerefa which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching. And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the sons of Jehudah ben Shamuai that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

Rav said, I am saying not less than the volume of an olive. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, for me and for him who did not make eruv? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: An eruv needs a measure neither at the start nor at the end. “On a holiday which falls on a Friday one makes eruv neither for courtyards nor for domains, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one makes eruv for courtyards but does not make eruv for domains”. One makes eruv for courtyards, because it allows something which is allowed to him, but does not make eruv for domains, because you would permit him something which is prohibited to him. There are Tannaim who switch. Rebbi Eleazar said, since there are Tannaim who switch, we have to take notice. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: He who wants to do it right makes the eruv the day before. Rebbi Yudan said, what you are saying is when he did not make eruv tavshilin, but if he made eruv tavshilin it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does eruv tavshilin permit dividers?

What are “seven similar to eighteen”? Rav says the end of each benediction and Samuel says the start of each benediction. Some formulate “seven similar to eighteen” and some formulate “eighteen similar to eighteen.” He who says “seven similar to eighteen” supports Samuel, he who says “eighteen similar to eighteen” supports Rav. Rebbi Ze`ira sent Rebbi Naḥum to Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael and said to him: What are the “seven similar to eighteen” of Samuel? He said to him: “Give us understanding, have pleasure in our repentance, forgive us, redeem us, heal our sicknesses, bless our years; Rebbi Ḥaggai said, in the rainy season one says: with blessed rains, in the season of dew one says: with blessed dew; for You gather in the dispersed, Yours it is to judge the misguided, put down Your hand on the wicked, but in You may rejoice all who hope for You to rebuild Your city, to renew Your Temple, because before we call You will answer as it is said: It shall be before they call that I shall answer, they still shall be talking while I will listen. Praised be the Eternal, Who certainly hears the voice of my supplications. Praise to You, Eternal, Who hears prayer.” And he says the first three and the last three benedictions.

What are “seven similar to eighteen”? Rav says the end of each benediction and Samuel says the start of each benediction. Some formulate “seven similar to eighteen” and some formulate “eighteen similar to eighteen.” He who says “seven similar to eighteen” supports Samuel, he who says “eighteen similar to eighteen” supports Rav. Rebbi Ze`ira sent Rebbi Naḥum to Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael and said to him: What are the “seven similar to eighteen” of Samuel? He said to him: “Give us understanding, have pleasure in our repentance, forgive us, redeem us, heal our sicknesses, bless our years; Rebbi Ḥaggai said, in the rainy season one says: with blessed rains, in the season of dew one says: with blessed dew; for You gather in the dispersed, Yours it is to judge the misguided, put down Your hand on the wicked, but in You may rejoice all who hope for You to rebuild Your city, to renew Your Temple, because before we call You will answer as it is said: It shall be before they call that I shall answer, they still shall be talking while I will listen. Praised be the Eternal, Who certainly hears the voice of my supplications. Praise to You, Eternal, Who hears prayer.” And he says the first three and the last three benedictions.

Until when is Ne`ilah? The rabbis of Caesarea say: Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. Rav said, when the gates of Heaven are locked. Rebbi Joḥanan: when the gates of the Temple are locked. Rebbi Yudan Antordaya said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “On three occasions do the Cohanim lift their hands four times in one day, mornings, Musaph, Minḥah, and at the locking of the gates.” May you say that the gates of heaven are locked while it is still daytime?

The verse supports Rebbi Joḥanan: It was in the morning of the second New Month. If you would say, there were two months, is it not written: why did Jesse’s son come neither yesterday not today to the meal? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan commanded those of the Kufra synagogue, make sure that you come home when it is still daytime and you should mention its time and its addition.

All the towns which Joshua enumerated are at least one hundred. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he enumerated those walled. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, he enumerated those close to the border. The verse supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: their border was Meḥelef [etc. And Qaḥtat, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Yedeala, and Bet Leḥem.] Meḥelef, Ḥelef. Me’elon, Aylin. Baṣa`ananim, Basin of Qedesh. And Adami, Damin. Hanneqeb, Ṣaidata. And Yabneel, Kefar Yama. Up to Laqqum, Loqim. And Qaṭtat, Qeṭonit. And Nahallal, Mahlul. And Shimron, Simonieh. And Yedeala, Ḥirieh. And Bet Leḥem, Bet Leḥem Sarieh.

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.

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.

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 Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sons of Noah brought well-being offerings. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the Sons of Noah brought elevation offerings. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, and Abel also brought from the firstlings of his sheep and of their excellence. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? From their luxurious ones. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, he sent the young men of Israel and they offered elevation offerings, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Entire in their bodies, without stripping and partitioning. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: [Is it not written, Jethro, Moses’s in-law, took elevation and well-being offerings for God?] What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Following him who said that Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Jehudah the great one and Rebbi Yannai disagreed. One said, Jethro came before the giving of the Torah; but the other one said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. We did not know who said what. Let us hear from the following: Jethro, the priest of Midyan, Moses’s in-law, heard. What did he hear? Ḥizqiah said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. Rebbi Joshua said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. [Rebbi Levi said, he heard the war of Amaleq.] The Great Jehudah said, he heard the giving of the Torah. Therefore he must be the one who said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the following supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Awake North, and come South. Awake North refers to the elevation sacrifice which is slaughtered in the North. What means “awake”? What was sleeping and awoke. And come South refers to well-being sacrifices which are slaughtered in the South. What means “come”? Something new. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? When the diasporas in the North awake and build the Temple in the South. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: also the following verse supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is the teaching about the elevation sacrifice. This is the elevation sacrifice which the Sons of Noah were sacrificing. When he comes to well-being sacrifice he says, this is the teaching about the well-being sacrifice. It is not written “which one brought” but shall bring from now on..

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sons of Noah brought well-being offerings. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the Sons of Noah brought elevation offerings. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, and Abel also brought from the firstlings of his sheep and of their excellence. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? From their luxurious ones. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, he sent the young men of Israel and they offered elevation offerings, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Entire in their bodies, without stripping and partitioning. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: [Is it not written, Jethro, Moses’s in-law, took elevation and well-being offerings for God?] What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Following him who said that Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Jehudah the great one and Rebbi Yannai disagreed. One said, Jethro came before the giving of the Torah; but the other one said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. We did not know who said what. Let us hear from the following: Jethro, the priest of Midyan, Moses’s in-law, heard. What did he hear? Ḥizqiah said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. Rebbi Joshua said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. [Rebbi Levi said, he heard the war of Amaleq.] The Great Jehudah said, he heard the giving of the Torah. Therefore he must be the one who said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the following supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Awake North, and come South. Awake North refers to the elevation sacrifice which is slaughtered in the North. What means “awake”? What was sleeping and awoke. And come South refers to well-being sacrifices which are slaughtered in the South. What means “come”? Something new. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? When the diasporas in the North awake and build the Temple in the South. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: also the following verse supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is the teaching about the elevation sacrifice. This is the elevation sacrifice which the Sons of Noah were sacrificing. When he comes to well-being sacrifice he says, this is the teaching about the well-being sacrifice. It is not written “which one brought” but shall bring from now on..

What does one read if it falls on a Friday? Rebbi Ze`ira says, one reads earlier. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one reads later. Rebbi Ze`ira was looking at him. He said to him, why are you looking at me? I said to you from tradition, and you are saying an opinion; why are you looking at me? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the first week? Any in which the New Month of Adar falls, even on Friday. What Samuel stated supports Rebbi Ila: What is the second week? Any in which Purim falls, even on Friday. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, think of it if the Fifteenth fell on a Sabbath? You may not read in the Esther scroll since one reads in Hagiographs only after afternoon prayers. Could they not read remember? He said to him, so says Rav, these days are remembered and executed, that the remembrance precedes the execution. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai asked, think of it if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath? Does not the remembrance precede the execution? He said to him, was this not already contradicted, it cannot happen. And if it could happen it would be belated for towns.

What does one read if it falls on a Friday? Rebbi Ze`ira says, one reads earlier. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one reads later. Rebbi Ze`ira was looking at him. He said to him, why are you looking at me? I said to you from tradition, and you are saying an opinion; why are you looking at me? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the first week? Any in which the New Month of Adar falls, even on Friday. What Samuel stated supports Rebbi Ila: What is the second week? Any in which Purim falls, even on Friday. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, think of it if the Fifteenth fell on a Sabbath? You may not read in the Esther scroll since one reads in Hagiographs only after afternoon prayers. Could they not read remember? He said to him, so says Rav, these days are remembered and executed, that the remembrance precedes the execution. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai asked, think of it if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath? Does not the remembrance precede the execution? He said to him, was this not already contradicted, it cannot happen. And if it could happen it would be belated for towns.

What does one read if it falls on a Friday? Rebbi Ze`ira says, one reads earlier. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one reads later. Rebbi Ze`ira was looking at him. He said to him, why are you looking at me? I said to you from tradition, and you are saying an opinion; why are you looking at me? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the first week? Any in which the New Month of Adar falls, even on Friday. What Samuel stated supports Rebbi Ila: What is the second week? Any in which Purim falls, even on Friday. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, think of it if the Fifteenth fell on a Sabbath? You may not read in the Esther scroll since one reads in Hagiographs only after afternoon prayers. Could they not read remember? He said to him, so says Rav, these days are remembered and executed, that the remembrance precedes the execution. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai asked, think of it if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath? Does not the remembrance precede the execution? He said to him, was this not already contradicted, it cannot happen. And if it could happen it would be belated for towns.

What does one read if it falls on a Friday? Rebbi Ze`ira says, one reads earlier. Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one reads later. Rebbi Ze`ira was looking at him. He said to him, why are you looking at me? I said to you from tradition, and you are saying an opinion; why are you looking at me? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the first week? Any in which the New Month of Adar falls, even on Friday. What Samuel stated supports Rebbi Ila: What is the second week? Any in which Purim falls, even on Friday. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, think of it if the Fifteenth fell on a Sabbath? You may not read in the Esther scroll since one reads in Hagiographs only after afternoon prayers. Could they not read remember? He said to him, so says Rav, these days are remembered and executed, that the remembrance precedes the execution. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai asked, think of it if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath? Does not the remembrance precede the execution? He said to him, was this not already contradicted, it cannot happen. And if it could happen it would be belated for towns.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaim formulate “over”, some Tannaim formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare [the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare] the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaim formulate “over”, some Tannaim formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare [the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare] the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

Tefillin and mezuzzah, which one has precedence? Samuel said, mezuzzah has precedence. Rav Ḥuna said, tefillin have precedence. What is Samuel’s reason? Since it applies on holidays and Sabbath. What is Rav Ḥuna’s reason? Since it applies to travellers on the Seas and those who cross deserts. A baraita supports Samuel: “A worn-out tefillah one may make into mezuzzah, a worn out mezuzzah one may not make into a tefillah. Why? Because one increases in holiness but may not decrease.”

The deaf-mute. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should hear and learn. So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should learn, so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks and does not hear should not give heave” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak is [not] ḥereš. But we have stated: “Ḥaliṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or by a woman for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say he shall say, she shall say. We also have stated: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

The House of Shammai are saying, heaven was created first and afterwards earth. But the House of Hillel are saying, earth was created first and afterwards heaven. These are bringing proof for their assertion, and those are bringing proof for their assertion. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. {A parable} of a king who made a chair. After he had made it he made its footstool: the Heavens are My throne and the Earth My footstool. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? On the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven {A parable} of a king who made a palace. After he built the foundations he built the upper structure: also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, also the following supports the House of Hillel: in earlier times You founded the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of Your hands. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the place from where the House of Shammai prove their assertion, from there the House of Hillel remove them. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. From there the House of Hillel remove them: and the earth was, it already was. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of the Sages: As for creation, the heaven preceded. As for perfecting, the earth preceded. As for creation, the heaven preceded, in the Beginning God created. As for perfecting, the earth preceded, on the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven. According to the House of Shammai, the heaven after the First waited three days, First, Second, Third, to have offspring. On the Fourth, there shall be lights. According to the House of Shammai, the sea after the Second waited three days, Second, Third, Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. According to the House of Shammai, the earth after the Third waited three days, Third, Fourth, Fifth, to have offspring. On the Sixth, the earth shall produce. According to the House of Hillel, the earth after the First waited two days, First and Second, to have offspring. On the Third, the earth shall be covered with grass. According to the House of Hillel, the sea after the Third waited two days, Third and Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai said, I am wondering how the fathers of the world could disagree about the creation of the world. Heaven and earth were only created like a pan and its cover. What is the reason? Also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, following this, my father’s opinion, sometimes heaven precedes earth, sometimes earth precedes heaven, which teaches that they are equivalent one to another.

We have stated: Jehudah ben Ṭabbai was Patriarch, and Simeon ben Shetaḥ President of the Court; there are Tannaim who switch. What happened in Alexandria supports him who said, Jehudah ben Tabbai was Patriarch. [The people of Jerusalem] wanted to appoint him Patriarch in Jerusalem. The people from Jerusalem did write: From the great Jerusalem to the small Alexandria: How long still will my betrothed live in your midst and I am sitting sorrowful about him? He took leave and started on a ship. He said, I remember the lady of the house who received us; what is she missing? One of his students told him, her eye is damaged. He told him, you have sinned twice; first that you suspected me, and second that you looked at her. Did I say that she was beautiful in looks? I only said that about her deeds. He was taking offense and he left.

What happened in Ascalon supports him who said, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president. Two pious men were in Ascalon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, and nobody attended his funeral. The son of Ma`yan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other pious man started crying and said woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? He was shown in a dream that it was said to him, do not denigrate your Master’s children. This one committed one sin and died with it, the other one did one good deed and died with it. What sin did this pious man commit? Far be it that he committed a sin, but once he put on his head phylacteries before his arm phylacteries. What good deed did the son of publican Ma`yan do? Far be it that he ever committed a good deed, but once he prepared a breakfast for the city council but they did not come to eat it. He said, let the poor eat it, so it should not go to waste. Some say, he was walking in the street when a loaf fell down from him and a poor person picked it up. He did not say anything [in order not to embarrass him]. After days this pious man saw his comrade the pious walking in gardens, in orchards, at water sources, and he saw the son of Ma`yan the publican with his tongue out on the river bank trying in vain to reach the water. He also saw Miriam, Onion-leaf’s daughter. Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, she was hanging on her breast nipples. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the hinge of Hell’s door was fixed in her ear. He asked them, why? They told him, because she fasted and made herself famous. Some say, she fasted one day and was dissolute two. He asked them for how long is she in this state? They told him, until Simeon ben Shetah comes, when we shall remove it from her ear and put it in his ear. [He asked them, and why?] They told him, because he said, that if I would be elected Patriarch, I would kill sorcerers. But now he was made Patriarch and he did not kill them. In fact, there are eighty women sorcerers in the cave of Ascalon who hurt the world. You shall go and tell him! He told them, I am afraid that since he is Patriarch he will not believe me. They told him, if he will believe you it will be good. In case that he will not believe you, perform a sign in front of him: put your hand on an eye and take it out, put it back and it will be back. He went and told him. He wanted to perform [the miracle] before him, but he told him, I know that you are a pious person; more than that you could do. In fact, I never spoke it with my mouth even though I intended so in my thoughts. Immediately Simeon ben Shetaḥ went on a stormy day and took with him eighty select men. He gave them eighty clean garments, put them in eighty new amphoras, and put them on them upside down. He told them, when I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle for the second time, come in all of you together. When you enter, each of you shall choose one and lift her from the ground, since the nature of this sorcery is that separated from the earth it cannot do anything. He went and stood at the entrance to the cave. He said אוים, אוים, open for me, I am one of yours. They asked, how did you come here on such a day? He said, I was walking between the raindrops. They asked him, what do you want to do here? He said, to learn and to teach. Every one should make what he is able to. One of them said what she said and produced bread. One of them said what she said and produced meat. One of them said what she said and produced dishes. One said what she said and produced wine. They asked him, what can you do? He told them, when I whistle twice, I shall bring here eighty select men for your pleasure and entertainment. They told him, that is what we desire. When he whistled the first time, they put on their garments; when he whistled for the second time, they all entered together. He said, every one who comes shall select his mate. They lifted them, took them away, and crucified them. That is what we have stated: “It happened that Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged women in Ascalon. [They said, he hanged eighty women but one does not try two on the same day.” But the hour needed it.]

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Every day the High Priest dresses in his robes, comes, and sacrifices the daily morning sacrifice. If there are vows or voluntary sacrifices, he offers them. Then he goes to his house, and returns to bring the daily evening sacrifice, and comes to stay overnight in the Palhedrin lodge. Rebbi Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He did this only on Sabbath and holidays. There are Tannaim who state: the diadem propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Every day the High Priest dresses in his robes, comes, and sacrifices the daily morning sacrifice. If there are vows or voluntary sacrifices, he offers them. Then he goes to his house, and returns to bring the daily evening sacrifice, and comes to stay overnight in the Palhedrin lodge. Rebbi Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He did this only on Sabbath and holidays. There are Tannaim who state: the diadem propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.

HALAKHAH: In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, “normally”, he fills his needle. “Staples”, stitch by stitch. Rebbi Joḥanan said, “normally”, stitch by stitch. “Staples”, he jumps. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: The cobblers are stapling on the holiday. If you would say stitch by stitch, that is what they are doing professionally. But we must hold that they sew irregularly. Who is an individual and who is a professional? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one who matches seams is a professional, but any who does not match seams is an individual. Rebbi Simon said, the Mishnah refers to those who sew pockets.

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.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Jehudah is suspicious about a child. Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. Could you say that Rebbi Meїr is not suspicious about bills of divorce, as we have stated: “Those that had received qiddushin can be married.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Gedula: The one who repudiates does not have to wait three months; the one who leaves by a bill of divorce needs to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Me‘ir since Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. It was stated: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood, Rebbi Jehudah says, makes impure 24 hours retroactively; Rebbi Yose says, from its moment onwards. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Judah are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Yose for the child. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case and he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him following Rebbi Yose for the child. For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex? 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, one disregards the anonymous [Mishnah] and follows an isolated opinion! He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He understood that following Rebbi Simeon, he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man certainly understands the chapters about bills of divorce.

Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Jehudah is suspicious about a child. Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. Could you say that Rebbi Meїr is not suspicious about bills of divorce, as we have stated: “Those that had received qiddushin can be married.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Gedula: The one who repudiates does not have to wait three months; the one who leaves by a bill of divorce needs to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Me‘ir since Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. It was stated: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood, Rebbi Jehudah says, makes impure 24 hours retroactively; Rebbi Yose says, from its moment onwards. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Judah are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Yose for the child. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case and he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him following Rebbi Yose for the child. For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex? 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, one disregards the anonymous [Mishnah] and follows an isolated opinion! He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He understood that following Rebbi Simeon, he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man certainly understands the chapters about bills of divorce.

“If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold. From your own they gave to you. It would be logical that one should not eat heave. But they said that he eats, and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye” from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit, as we have stated: If somebody mortgages a slave and later sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days” and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman should run around at courts of law. They said, Rebbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rebbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold. From your own they gave to you. It would be logical that one should not eat heave. But they said that he eats, and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye” from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit, as we have stated: If somebody mortgages a slave and later sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days” and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman should run around at courts of law. They said, Rebbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rebbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold. From your own they gave to you. It would be logical that one should not eat heave. But they said that he eats, and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye” from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit, as we have stated: If somebody mortgages a slave and later sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days” and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman should run around at courts of law. They said, Rebbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rebbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold. From your own they gave to you. It would be logical that one should not eat heave. But they said that he eats, and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye” from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit, as we have stated: If somebody mortgages a slave and later sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days” and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman should run around at courts of law. They said, Rebbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rebbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold.

This supports what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane immerses herself from her husband’s bosom and eats, against Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, also if an unmarried man had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage it is copulation of harlotry.

“They said to him: If it is practice, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument.” What could they have argued? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Are not his grandchildren forbidden for three generations, both male and female? Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish questioned, does one argue a matter concerning bastardy in a matter not concerning bastardy? Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Abbahu questioned, does one argue a matter concerning extirpation in a matter not concerning extirpation? He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice and a verse supports me. “Sons,” not daughters.

HALAKHAH: “There exist women permitted to their husbands,” etc. Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava asked before Rebbi Jonah: Why “married”? Even “betrothed”! Why a widow? even a virgin! Are these all? She and her co-wife. I also have others: The co-wife of one suspected of adultery is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir. If his brother had slept with the sister of one who had performed ḥalîṣah with him, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir. If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive.

Are these all? There are others: If somebody takes back a woman he divorced after she had been married [to another man], she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. If he slept with the sister of a woman with whom he had performed ḥalîṣah, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. If a man with injured testicles married a qualified woman, she is forbidden to the husband but permitted to the levir. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive.

HALAKHAH: Are these all? There are others: A woman suspected of adultery is forbidden to both of them. The widow after ḥalîṣah is forbidden to both of them. If a man with injured testicles married a qualified woman and has a brother with injured testicles, she is forbidden to both of them. This supports Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi Jonah said, the groupings of Rebbi are not exhaustive.

HALAKHAH: “They came and told her, your son died,” etc. If she should not have married but entered levirate, this is the case of a sister-in-law who married without ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this man performs ḥalīṣah, the other one keeps her. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She must leave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: She must leave. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Phineas, how does the rabbi hold? He said, with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him, change your mind, for otherwise I shall publicly call you a rebellious Elder. Rebbi Zevidah said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “She must leave both of them and the thirteen items apply to her, following Rebbi Meïr who said it in the name of his teacher Rebbi Aqibah. But the Sages say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law.” They only said, “there is no bastard from a sister-in-law,” therefore she must leave. And we have stated, “she must leave”. And Rebbi Joḥanan said, she must leave.

“A wooden sandal.” The colleagues in the name of Rav: If only the edges are wooden. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: If only the bottom of the sole is wooden. There, they say in the name of Rav: If only the loops are wooden. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if it is entirely of wood it is valid. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ A straw sandal becomes impure by being stepped on and a woman may use it for ḥalîṣah, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages do not agree about impurity by being stepped on.”

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak isḥereš. But we have stated: “Ḥalîṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

Rav Huna insists on interpreting the contract text. Rav Huna explained: “The sons shall inherit but the daughters must be fed.” Since the sons inherit movables, the daughters also are fed from movables. Samuel said, the daughters are not fed from movables. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “The female children you shall have from me shall dwell in my house and be supported from my property.” It was stated on this: From real estate but not from movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rebbi and Samuel follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “One uses both guaranteed property and non-guaranteed property for the support of the wife and the daughters, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, guaranteed property may be taken by sons from sons, by daughters from daughters, by sons from daughters, and by daughters from sons. But non-guaranteed property may be taken by sons from daughters but not by daughters from sons.” They said, Rav Huna reversed himself. They said, that was well done, ketubah is a biblical commandment but support of the daughters is from their words. May their words uproot a biblical commandment? It must be that they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah. But is the money contained in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate?

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Aqiba said, when I left the country for Nahardea for the intercalation of the year, Nehemiah from Badala found me,” etc. If it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”; Rebbi Jeremiah said, one lets his wife remarry; Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, one does not let his wife remarry. A baraita supports the one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “By the mouth of witnesses,” not on basis of their writings, not on the word of a translator, not on the testimony of a single witness.” Today, does one not let remarry on the testimony of a single witness? Therefore also one lets remarry on basis of their writings and on the word of a translator. A baraita supports Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The power of witnesses is greater than the power of a document and the power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses. Since if witnesses say, “X died, X was killed”, one lets his wife remarry but if it was found in a document: “X died, X was killed”, one does not let his wife remarry. The power of a document is greater than the power of witnesses, since if somebody gives a loan before witnesses, he can foreclose only from unincumbered property; by a document, he can foreclose from mortgaged property.