tanna

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

A buckthorn planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard! Rebbi Matthew understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden, so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden, so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.

And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! But we do not say so, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina said, my father Rebbi Abbahu had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi, and they instructed him according to Rebbi Eliezer. Would they instruct according to an isolated opinion? But it is that they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! But we do not say so, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina said, my father Rebbi Abbahu had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi, and they instructed him according to Rebbi Eliezer. Would they instruct according to an isolated opinion? But it is that they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

HALAKHAH: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.” Some Tannaїm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaїm state: What envelopes the fruit. He who says what envelopes the fruit, understands shells and pits. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits. From where pits? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.” Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it.

HALAKHAH: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.” Some Tannaїm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaїm state: What envelopes the fruit. He who says what envelopes the fruit, understands shells and pits. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits. From where pits? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.” Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it.

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

“ When the patriarch enters, everybody stands and they may not sit down until he tells them: sit! For the chief judge one forms rows; he may choose through which one to enter. For the ḥakham, one person after another stands up and then sits down until he arrives at his place.” Rebbi Meïr was used to it that when he went to the assembly hall, the people saw him and stood up before him. When they heard a Tanna reciting this statement, they wanted to follow its rules. He got angry and left. He said to them, I heard than one promotes in dignity but does not demote.

They wanted to ordain Rebbi Zeïra but he did not want to take it upon himself. When he heard a Tanna stating: “For an ordained person, a bridegroom, a patriarch, the dignity deletes [his sins],” he accepted being ordained. An ordained person: (Lev. 19:32): “Before a white head you shall rise, give respect to an Elder, and fear your God, I am the Eternal.” What is written after that (v. 33): “If a proselyte lives in your land, you shall not trick him.” Just as all his sins are forgiven to the proselyte, so all sins are forgiven to one being ordained. The bridegroom: (Gen. 28:9) “Esaw went to Ismael and married Maḥalat bat Ismael.” But was her name Maḥalat, was it not Basemat? But all his sins were forgiven him. The president: (1S. 13:1) “Saul was one year old when he became king.” Was he one year old when he became king? But all his sins were forgiven him as to a baby of one year.

Rebbi Mana made light of those ordained for money. Rebbi Ammi read for them (Ex. 20:19): “Do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” Rebbi Yoshia said, their prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Ashian said, if somebody is ordained for money, one does not get up before him and one does not address him as Rebbi; his prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis were sitting together when a person ordained for money was passing by. One of the rabbis said to Rebbi Zeïra, let us behave like Tannaïm and not get up before him.

Some Tannaïm switch statements to combine gift with gift.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One may ask about practice of the bath in the bathhouse and the practice of the toilet in the toilet. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went bathing with Rebbi Meïr. He asked him, how about drying oneself with a towel? He told him, it is forbidden. How about rinsing? He told him, it is forbidden. But did not Samuel ask Rav, may one say Amen at a dirty place? He told him: it is forbidden and it is forbidden for me to tell you it is forbidden. There was found a Tanna who stated: One does (not) ask about practice of the bath in the bathhouse and the practice of the toilet in the toilet.

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.

3. One who catches a purple snail and crushes it. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable twice. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable only once. He who says twice, one because of catching and one because of depriving of life. But he who says once, this is because of depriving of life. Does he not have catching? It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: The Holy One, praise to Him, created for Moses in the desert a kind of pure animal. After the work of the Tabernacle had been finished it was hidden. Rebbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a unicorn. It is preferable to the Eternal to a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves. It is written, it sprouts a horn.

3. One who catches a purple snail and crushes it. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable twice. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable only once. He who says twice, one because of catching and one because of depriving of life. But he who says once, this is because of depriving of life. Does he not have catching? It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: The Holy One, praise to Him, created for Moses in the desert a kind of pure animal. After the work of the Tabernacle had been finished it was hidden. Rebbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a unicorn. It is preferable to the Eternal to a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves. It is written, it sprouts a horn.

He shall write, not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

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

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is [not] made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is [not] made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father and disagrees with his father. The argument of his father, about an individual more than two bet se’ah. And disagrees with his father, about a caravan less than two bet se’ah Did we not hear that Rebbi Jehudah said, an individual for more than two bet se’ah needs woof and warp? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Aḥa the Tanna, Rebbi Ḥanin, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Sheshet: Just as they differ here so they are differing about kilaim. And in Kilaim not even if it is a bet rova?

“If one big stone was there one sees that if it is split and there be six [hand-breadths] in both directions it is considered a double column.” Some Tannaim state, if it is hollowed out. They wanted to say that he who says, if it is hollowed out, measures from the inside while he who says, if it is split, measures from the outside. Rebbi Yose said, would you not let it stand if it was like garlic skin? This implies that both he who says that it is split as also he who says it is hollowed out measures from the inside. He who says, if it is hollowed out, if it is round; he who says, if it is split, if it is square. You should know that it is so since one Tanna said to the other, the only difference between my formulation and yours is that you are speaking of a round one but I about a square one.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “A person may make his eruv conditional,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “A person can impose a condition on his ˋeruvin.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if they came”, “if they did not come”? Rebbi Meïr! Which Rebbi Meïr? The colleagues say, Rebbi Meïr of Qiddušin. As it was stated: If somebody say to a woman: You are preliminarily married to me on condition that there will be rain. If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Meïr says, she is preliminarily married whether or not rain fell unless he doubled his condition. Everybody agrees that if he said, after rainfall, if it rained she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. (But following the rabbis she is preliminarily married whether rain fell or not.) Rebbi Yose said, it follows Rebbi Meïr in Eruvin, as we have stated there: “If it is a matter of uncertainty„ Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah say, he is a donkey driver-camel driver.” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr said this only as a restriction. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct. He cannot acquire his ˋeruv since he is not able to enjoy it. [Why not] like the people of his place? If he had decided to leave his place. And here, she is not preliminarily married to the first, since no rain came. She is not preliminarily married to the second, since the first did not double his condition. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this “if” not a reaction? He answered, there is a difference since the land was in their hand and he wanted to take it away from them.

A semi-convert and a semi-converted slave as well as an apostate acting in public are like Gentiles in every respect. There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine, and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission, but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission.

A semi-convert and a semi-converted slave as well as an apostate acting in public are like Gentiles in every respect. There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor prohibits immediately and a troop of soldiers after thirty days.” There are Tannaïm who state: “A quaestor forbids after thirty days but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids.” He who says, a quaestor prohibits immediately, if it is routine, and a troop of soldiers after thirty days, if it is not routine. But he who says a quaestor forbids after thirty days, if he enters by permission, but a troop of soldiers never ever forbids, if they enter without permission.

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

There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent, in case it died he is not liable.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower. Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent, in case it died he is not liable.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower. Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. They estimated (the place of) what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah. If the sump sprung a hole, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it: If it is sloping inside, even more than ten is permitted; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state, “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.

HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state, “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “cutting”? Rebbi Meïr. Who is the Tanna of “binding into sheaves”? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that one may cut, and everybody agrees that one may not tie into sheaves. Where did they disagree? About grafting of date palms. Rebbi Meïr says, one grafts date entire day, and they acted following the will of the rabbis. Rebbi Judah says, they were not acting following the will of the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “cutting”? Rebbi Meïr. Who is the Tanna of “binding into sheaves”? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that one may cut, and everybody agrees that one may not tie into sheaves. Where did they disagree? About grafting of date palms. Rebbi Meïr says, one grafts date entire day, and they acted following the will of the rabbis. Rebbi Judah says, they were not acting following the will of the rabbis.

Who is the Tanna of “whether it be weekday or Sabbath”? Rebbi Ismael, as it was stated: “As its order is on a weekday so its order is on a Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, as its order is on a Friday so is its order on a Sabbath.” This means that Rebbi Ismael makes it an hour later for its arguments, and Rebbi Aqiba makes it an hour earlier to occupy oneself with it, so they would not fulfill the commandment while inebriated. Could not the Pesaḥ be brought first and the daily sacrifice afterwards? If you are saying so, you are eliminating between the evenings of the Pesaḥ. If you are keeping between the evenings of the Pesaḥ, are you not eliminating between the evenings of the daily sacrifice? If you are neglecting between the evenings of the daily sacrifice now, you can observe it at other times. If you are neglecting it now for the Pesaḥ, when can you ever observe it? Could not Pesaḥ be brought first, followed by the daily sacrifice? The one about which is written in the evening and between the evenings shall be delayed more than one about which is written [only] between the evenings.

Could not both be brought simultaneously? Rebbi Yose said, the sheep is second, the Pesaḥ is not second. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan says, every day the daily sacrifice was slaughtered at eight and a half, and brought at nine and a half. What means “every day”? Every Passover Eve. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of this Tanna is to allow half an hour between one group and the next.

HALAKHAH: Are not all public sacrifices brought in impurity? He only comes to tell you, even though they are brought in impurity they are not eaten in impurity. Both for him who says that the bread is the main item, as also for him who says that the sheep are the main item, there should be only four. The Tanna takes note of them and stated them as five.

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.

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.

Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates the year because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate the year because of impurity. He who says, one does not intercalate, how does he uphold: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written? They intercalated in Nisan but only Adar can be intercalated. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Yebusite under the altar.

Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates the year because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate the year because of impurity. He who says, one does not intercalate, how does he uphold: for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written? They intercalated in Nisan but only Adar can be intercalated. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Yebusite under the altar.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water on the Day of Atonement.

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.

The bull, the ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of this Tanna is to join purification sacrifice to purification sacrifice and elevation sacrifice to elevation sacrifice. But some want to say, the bull, the ram, the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering. This Tanna distributes the services. What is the reason? He leaves and brings hiselevation sacrifice and the people’s elevation sacrifice. As mentioned in the matter. What is mentioned in the matter? His ram and the people’s ram. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, what is the reason for the he-goat? Of the blood of the atoning purification sacrifice. The atoning purification sacrifice already preceded.

The bull, the ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of this Tanna is to join purification sacrifice to purification sacrifice and elevation sacrifice to elevation sacrifice. But some want to say, the bull, the ram, the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering. This Tanna distributes the services. What is the reason? He leaves and brings hiselevation sacrifice and the people’s elevation sacrifice. As mentioned in the matter. What is mentioned in the matter? His ram and the people’s ram. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, what is the reason for the he-goat? Of the blood of the atoning purification sacrifice. The atoning purification sacrifice already preceded.

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

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

“The `omer, and the Two Breads., and the shew-bread.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated: “All private and public sacrifices come from the Land and from outside the Land, from new or old [grain], except for `omer and the Two Breads, which only come from new grain and from the Land.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated: “There are ten levels of holiness. The Land of Israel is holier than other lands; and what is its holiness? That one brings from it the `omer, first fruits, and the Two Breads, which cannot be from other lands.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Ismael says, since sowing is a voluntary act, also harvesting is a voluntary act. This excludes harvesting the `omer, which is a commandment.” Who is the Tanna of “the watchmen for aftergrowth in the sabbatical year take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge”? Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. If one would not find in Syria,.one would bring from the aftergrowth in the Land of Israel. Could one sow from the start for the `omer? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, would he not take the fistful for leftovers than cannot be eaten? He said to him, it has a status like the five kinds which can be brought in impurity but may not be eaten in impurity.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagari said before Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The reason of this Tanna: But if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered. Why does the verse say, impure? But even impure for this denomination. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, but if any impure animal from which no sacrifice to the Eternal may be offered; anything which could be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place does not effect substitution. This excludes the female of a bird which even though it cannot be sacrificed here is fit to be sacrificed at another place. Rebbi Abbin and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Are there not the animals used for active or passive bestiality, which can be sacrificed neither here nor at any other place, and they effect substitution? He said to them, also I did speak only about really impure ones. This is difficult; about this is written, he shall stand, he shall appraise?

It is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

It is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers in vineyards since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is not made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna.

Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment for Cohanim.

From where did the House of Hillel merit that practice should be fixed following their words? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, because they quoted the words of the House of Shammai before their own words. Not only that, but if they were convinced by the words of the House of Shammai they changed their opinions. Rebbi Simon bar Zeved objected before Rebbi Ila: Or could we say that the Tanna saw that they were older and quoted them first? But did we not state, “it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran”? We could have said, our elders and your elders. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: Since the House of Shammai dismissed the House of Hillel, this implies that practice follows their words.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: No less than seven and no more than sixteen. This Tanna considers blowing straight, modulated, and straight as one unit; the other Tanna considers each single one of them as a unit. You find to say, three for each tribe; Rebbi Jehudah says, three for each standard. But it was stated, and nine at the tenth step. That is another one. He who has “three on top of the altar” does not have “at the tenth step;” he who has “at the tenth step” does not have “three on top of the altar”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that they only blew the trumpet at the water libation. If you are saying, for the drawings, one should state, three for drawing water today, and three for drawing water for tomorrow. Are these it? Are there not others, nine for musaf on the Sabbath, nine for the musaf on a New Moon, and nine for the musaf of the New Year’s day holiday? But it must follow him who said, they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Even following him who said they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices, they were adding modulated sounds, they were not adding straight tones.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: No less than seven and no more than sixteen. This Tanna considers blowing straight, modulated, and straight as one unit; the other Tanna considers each single one of them as a unit. You find to say, three for each tribe; Rebbi Jehudah says, three for each standard. But it was stated, and nine at the tenth step. That is another one. He who has “three on top of the altar” does not have “at the tenth step;” he who has “at the tenth step” does not have “three on top of the altar”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that they only blew the trumpet at the water libation. If you are saying, for the drawings, one should state, three for drawing water today, and three for drawing water for tomorrow. Are these it? Are there not others, nine for musaf on the Sabbath, nine for the musaf on a New Moon, and nine for the musaf of the New Year’s day holiday? But it must follow him who said, they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Even following him who said they shall blow, in the course of the musaf sacrifices, they were adding modulated sounds, they were not adding straight tones.

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?

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

If the Court saw the killer; even if they said, if we saw him we would not recognize him, they would not break the neck, for it is written, our eyes did not see in any way, and they did see. And if the court saw the killer, some Tannaïm state: two of them become witnesses and testify before the rest of them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all are witnesses and have to go and testify before another place. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

If the Court saw the killer; even if they said, if we saw him we would not recognize him, they would not break the neck, for it is written, our eyes did not see in any way, and they did see. And if the court saw the killer, some Tannaïm state: two of them become witnesses and testify before the rest of them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all are witnesses and have to go and testify before another place. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.

HALAKHAH: Jehudah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya went out. They asked him, what are the rules for a ladder to the upper floor? He told them, it is permitted. When he returned to his father, he asked him, what case came to your hands? He said, I permitted them the ladder to the upper floor. He appointed his Tanna before him, who stated, “when was this said, about a ladder for a dovecote. But a ladder for the upper floor is forbidden.” What is the difference between a ladder for a dovecote and a ladder for the upper floor? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a ladder for a dovecote if he had used it the day before for work it would be weak; a ladder for the upper floor may be used for work the day before. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on the ladder for a dovecote he may stand and use it for his purpose; on the ladder for the upper floor he may not stand and use it for his purpose. A ladder for a dovecote even if it is used to climb to the upper floor; a ladder for the upper floor even if it used to climb to the dovecote.

It was stated: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “From when does one mention the Power of rains,” etc. The reason of Rebbi Eliezer, because these four kinds grow on water, they become attorneys for water. Another explanation, when the slave serves all his master’s needs he asks for his reward from him. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is it not that when the slave has served all his master’s needs and his master is satisfied with him that he asks his [sustenance] from him? Another explanation. The slave asks for his reward only close to the time when his reward is due. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, from the time one takes the lulav; Rebbi Joshua says, from the time he puts it down. In the opinion of the latter Tanna, the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in the first is his opinion in the latter. The argument of Rebbi Joshua is inverted. There, he says from the concluding holiday, but here he says, from the time he puts it down. Rebbi Mana says, because the entire day is qualified to take the lulav. Should he not mention in the evening? Not everybody is there. Then he should mention it in the morning. He would think that maybe they mentioned in the evening and he will mention. Since he sees that they do not mention in the first {prayer} but mention in the later {prayer}, he understands that they did not mention in the evening. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to him, so was your father Rebbi Jonah arguing it.

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

HALAKHAH: Rav said, answer me, Eternal, answer me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Rebbi Yose said, to help but not to vociferation.” Therefore the first Tanna holds even for vociferation.

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

HALAKHAH: They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Come and see, if it falls so that in walled cities one should read on the Sabbath, one reads on Friday. If it falls so that in villages one should read on the Sabbath, it is being pushed to the market day! Rebbi La said, because of the honor of walled cities, that one should not say, we saw walled cities and villages read at the same day. Then it should not be pushed to the market day, that one should not say, we saw hamlets and villages read on the same day. Then if it falls on Monday, falls on [Thursday, falls on] the Sabbath? It was found stated, Hamlets [and villages] and walled cities may read together; and this Tanna does not show (respect) [even] for any creature. He holds that walled cities cannot precede villages; he holds that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. “Rebbi says, all shall be pushed to the market day.” For he holds that walled cities cannot precede villages; for he holds that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. How does one act? Rebbi Yose said, following the Mishnah.

They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: As you are saying there, if it falls so that in walled cities one should read on the Sabbath, one reads on Friday. If it falls so that in villages one should read on the Sabbath, should one not read it on Friday? But the Mishnah must be by two Tannaim. The first Tanna is of the opinion that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. [The other Tanna is of the opinion that not everything which is pushed away is pushed to the market day.] He said to them, so says Rav: it is one Tanna. Why did they say, if for walled cities it falls on a Sabbath, one reads it on Friday? Because Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading. And similarly, if for villages it would fall on the Sabbath; as Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war. It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. It is found stated, hamlets read on Friday; large villages are pushed to the market day, and walled cities after the Sabbath. How does one act? Rebbi Yose said, it is impossible, but if one would be possible, following the Mishnah.

They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: As you are saying there, if it falls so that in walled cities one should read on the Sabbath, one reads on Friday. If it falls so that in villages one should read on the Sabbath, should one not read it on Friday? But the Mishnah must be by two Tannaim. The first Tanna is of the opinion that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. [The other Tanna is of the opinion that not everything which is pushed away is pushed to the market day.] He said to them, so says Rav: it is one Tanna. Why did they say, if for walled cities it falls on a Sabbath, one reads it on Friday? Because Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading. And similarly, if for villages it would fall on the Sabbath; as Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war. It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. It is found stated, hamlets read on Friday; large villages are pushed to the market day, and walled cities after the Sabbath. How does one act? Rebbi Yose said, it is impossible, but if one would be possible, following the Mishnah.

They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: As you are saying there, if it falls so that in walled cities one should read on the Sabbath, one reads on Friday. If it falls so that in villages one should read on the Sabbath, should one not read it on Friday? But the Mishnah must be by two Tannaim. The first Tanna is of the opinion that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. [The other Tanna is of the opinion that not everything which is pushed away is pushed to the market day.] He said to them, so says Rav: it is one Tanna. Why did they say, if for walled cities it falls on a Sabbath, one reads it on Friday? Because Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading. And similarly, if for villages it would fall on the Sabbath; as Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war. It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. It is found stated, hamlets read on Friday; large villages are pushed to the market day, and walled cities after the Sabbath. How does one act? Rebbi Yose said, it is impossible, but if one would be possible, following the Mishnah.

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.

“Books, they may not buy ribands.” Even from Prophets and Hagiographs one may [not] buy ribands for Torah or Ḥumashim. One ties a Torah with ribands of Torah, Ḥumashim with ribands of Ḥumashim, [Prophets with ribands of Prophets]; Torah and Ḥumashim with ribands of Prophets and Hagiographs, but not Prophets and Hagiographs with ribands of Torah and Ḥumashim. One may put a Torah on top of a Torah, Ḥumashim on top of Ḥumashim, Torah and Ḥumashim on top of Prophets and Hagiographs but not Prophets and Hagiographs on top of Torah and Ḥumashim. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: The Tanna fled from Torah and Ḥumashim.

They wanted to excommunicate Rebbi Eliezer. They said, who will go and inform him? Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall go and inform him. He went to him and said to him, my teacher, my teacher, your colleagues are excommunicating you. He took him outside, saying: Carob tree, carob tree, if practice has to follow their words, be uprooted. It was not uprooted. If practice has to follow my words, be uprooted. It was uprooted. If practice has to follow their words, turn back. It did not turn back. If practice has to follow my words, turn back. It turned back. All these extraordinary happenings and practice do not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥanina said, when it was given, it also was given to follow the majority opinion. [Did Rebbi Eliezer not know that practice has to follow the majority opinion?] He was offended only because they burned his food prepared in purity in his presence. There we have stated: “If it was cut into strips and sand was placed between any two strips, Rebbi Eliezer declares pure but the Sages declare impure. This is the Ḥakhinai oven.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, a big itching was happening on that day: Everything on which Rebbi Eliezer gazed was burned. Not only that, but a grain of wheat might have been half burned and half not burned, and the walls of the house of assembly were weakened. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if colleagues are fighting, what does this concern you? There came an unembodied voice and said, practice follows My son Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said, it is not in Heaven. Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi: If a person would say to me, that is how Rebbi Eliezer stated, I am stating following his words since the Tannaïm switch. Once he was walking in public and he saw a woman when sweeping her house throwing it out, it fell on his head. He said, it seems that today my colleagues are befriending me, for it is written: He lifts the downtrodden from the dung heap.

“Who is his teacher? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.” What means, who explained a Mishnah to him? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off {his shoes} for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “There are two keys. For one he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.” What means “for one he has to go down to his arm-pit”? He had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened.

What if there is a co-wife? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Avina: One has stated there, “if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives should be freed. But it must follow Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah without being admitted to levirate. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rebbi Phineas said to Rebbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sistersshould not be freed! But we have stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaïm interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were not freed.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of that Tanna: “At the end of ten years since Abram lived in the Land of Canaan.” Deduct the years outside the Land. We also have stated: [The time during which] she was sick or he was sick, or he went overseas, does not count. If she was married to the first [husband] and did not give birth, she receives ketubah; from the second she receives ketubah, from the third she receives ketubah, from the fourth and fifth she has no ketubah. Rebbi Ḥanina bar ‘Agil in the name of Rebbi Ḥizqiah: From the third himself she has no ketubah. If she was married to a fourth or fifth and did not give birth, may the earlier ones have regress on her? She can say, only now did this woman become sterile. If she was married to the fifth and gave birth, has she regress on the fourth? He says to her, your silence is better than your talk.

If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

If she had intercourse and saw blood repeatedly. Some Tannaïm state, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not. But some Tannaïm state, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time she may have intercourse, a third time she may not, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah. But he who says, a third time she may have intercourse, a fourth time she may not, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. If one gave birth to male childen and they died when being circumcised. Some Tannaïm state, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise. Some Tannaïm state, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise. They wanted to say that he who says, a second time one should circumcise, a third time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that a third time she has no ketubah He who says, a third time one should circumcise, a fourth time one should not circumcise, holds with him who says that the third time she has ketubah. Even he, who says that the third time she has ketubah agrees here that one should not circumcise because of the danger. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan said, it happened that I went to Kappadokian Caesarea, and there was a woman who gave birth to male children and they died when being circumcised. She circumcised the first [child] and he died, the second and he died, the third and he died. She brought the fourth one before me, I looked at him and saw that he did not have enough blood for circumcision. I told them, wait for later. They waited, circumsised him, he turned out to be living, and they called him Nathan after me.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra: The reason of that Tanna: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and conquer it.” It is written “he shall conquer it.” Who usually conquers? The man, not the woman. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Isaac bar Marion, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula in the name of Rebbi Jehudah Neśia: If she requests to be married, she has the law on her side. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said to him, I was with you and it was only said that if she requests to be married, she has the law on her side. In a similar case, referring to what we have stated there: “In the week in which the Ninth of Av falls, it is forbidden to get a haircut and to wash. But on Thursday one is permitted, in preparation for the Sabbath.” Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi wanted to do away with the Ninth of Av but they did not let him. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, I was with you and it was only said that Rebbi wanted to do away with the Ninth of Av which happened to be on the Sabbath but they did not let him. He said, since it is pushed away, let it be pushed away. They said to him, it should be pushed to the next day. He recited on these: “Two are better than one.”

A slave may be a permanent sojourner. A sojourner is like a Gentile in every respect. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One keeps the sojourner for twelve months. If he changes his mind, that is fine; otherwise he is like a Gentile in all respects. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: The sojourner has to accept on condition that he may eat cadaver meat. Rebbi Hila said, one would then say, the words are [interpreted] as they are written. What does it mean, the words are [interpreted] as they are written? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it.” Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he accepts all commandments written in the Torah. Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their consensus: unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. For if it were not so, what would we say? Since he is forbidden idolatry he cannot render profane. But are Gentiles not also forbidden idolatry and they do render profane? Rebbi Yose said, that you should not say, since he is equal to an Israel in three respects, do not oppress, do not cheat, and he is exiled like an Israel, that he has no power to render profane. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out that he renders idols profane like a Gentile. Who is the Tanna who includes “do not oppress”? He is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: The sojourner is protected by the prohibition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

They answered on the words of Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah: If so, there is no end to it. If he is believed, he declares his jealousy (before two) [by himself], brings witnesses that she was in a secluded place and disables her from receiving the ketubah. Rebbi Yose said, what business did she have in a secluded place? But it refers to the statement in the Mishnah. Is he believed to declare formally his jealousy and then say that she was in a secluded place and disable her from receiving her ketubah? Rebbi Mana said, even for that other Tanna it is [a] valid [objection], following him who says that he may declare his jealousy in respect to her father or her son. Is he believed to declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, can he then bring witnesses that she was in a secluded place with them and disable her from receiving her ketubah? If you ask, what business did she have in a secluded place? The Torah permitted her to be in a secluded place, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written: “If your brother, your mother’s son, incites you, etc.,” Your daughter, in secret; your mother, in secret; a man may be alone with his mother and dwell with her, with his daughter and dwell with her, with his sister but may not dwell with her.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty. Some Tannaїm state: “In an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty. They wanted to say, he who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, is Rebbi Eliezer, but he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis. All is of the rabbis: He who says “in an earthenware vessel”, not if it is sooty, follows the rabbis, and he who says, “in an earthenware vessel”, even if it is sooty, follows the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “Then he starts writing the scroll,” etc. Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, he administers the oath and then he writes; the other one said, he writes and then he administers the oath. They wanted to say that he who says, he administers the oath and then he writes, follows what is written in the verse but he who says, he writes and then he administers the oath, to join the oath to the drinking. There are Tannaїm who state: The conditions and the oaths impede; there are Tannaїm who state: The oaths impede, the conditions do not impede. They wanted to say that he who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, holds that “law” and “teaching” impedes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, does not agree. Certainly he does agree but they are not [written] in order. It turns out that this disagreement is like the previous disagreement. He who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, agrees with him who says, he administers the oath and then he writes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, agrees with him who says, he writes and then he administers the oath.

HALAKHAH: “Then he starts writing the scroll,” etc. Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, he administers the oath and then he writes; the other one said, he writes and then he administers the oath. They wanted to say that he who says, he administers the oath and then he writes, follows what is written in the verse but he who says, he writes and then he administers the oath, to join the oath to the drinking. There are Tannaїm who state: The conditions and the oaths impede; there are Tannaїm who state: The oaths impede, the conditions do not impede. They wanted to say that he who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, holds that “law” and “teaching” impedes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, does not agree. Certainly he does agree but they are not [written] in order. It turns out that this disagreement is like the previous disagreement. He who says, the conditions and the oaths impede, agrees with him who says, he administers the oath and then he writes; but he who says, the oaths impede, the conditions do not impede, agrees with him who says, he writes and then he administers the oath.

“And he writes”. I could think [one writes] with ink, or vermilion, or gum, or copper sulfate, the verse says, “he shall wipe off”. If he has to erase, I could think [one writes] with drinks or fruit juice; the verse says, “he shall write”. How is that? Writing that can be wiped off. What is this? This is ink without vitriol. But did we not state: If he wiped off from a Torah scroll it is valid. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: Rebbi Meïr said, all the time we were studying with Rebbi Ismael, we put no vitriol in the ink.