tannaim

So far it only is written, “do not mate your animals kilaim.” Birds from where? Some Tannaim state from (Lev. 19:19): “You must keep My basic Laws,” some state from: “your animals you shall not mate kilaim.” If somebody grafted a tree and mated birds, following him who says “you must keep My basic Laws,” he is guilty of two offenses, according to him who says, “your animals you shall not mate kilaim,” he is guilty only of one offense. When he mated animals and birds, following him who says “you must keep My basic Laws,” he is guilty only of one offense; according to him who says, “your animals you shall not mate kilaim,” he is guilty of two offenses.

If he was standing inside and his hand full of produce was stretched to the outside when the day became holy he is forbidden to take it back. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: following him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten [hand-breadths]. There are Tannaim who state, it is permitted. They wanted to say, he who says it is permitted if there was four [cubits] of space; but he who says it is forbidden if there was not four [cubits] of space. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in both cases (it is forbidden) it follows him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten [hand-breadths]. What about it? He who says it is forbidden below ten [hand-breadths]; he who says it is permitted, above ten [hand-breadths].

Some Tannaim state, one kindles with naphtha; but some Tannaim state, one does not kindle with naphtha. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one kindles, if it was black; and he who said, one does not kindle, if it was white, because it represents danger.

Some Tannaim state, one kindles with naphtha; but some Tannaim state, one does not kindle with naphtha. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one kindles, if it was black; and he who said, one does not kindle, if it was white, because it represents danger.

If one made a fire and cooked, there are Tannaim who state, he is twice liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is once liable. He who said that he is twice liable, once because of setting a fire and once because of cooking. But he who said once, which one is it? Rebbi Jehudah says, because of setting a fire. Rebbi Yose says, because of cooking. It is difficult for Rebbi Yose; setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah; he is not liable because of setting a fire but because of cooking?

If one made a fire and cooked, there are Tannaim who state, he is twice liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is once liable. He who said that he is twice liable, once because of setting a fire and once because of cooking. But he who said once, which one is it? Rebbi Jehudah says, because of setting a fire. Rebbi Yose says, because of cooking. It is difficult for Rebbi Yose; setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah; he is not liable because of setting a fire but because of cooking?

HALAKHAH: “Because of three sins women die in childbirth,” etc. There are Tannaim who state, as children. There are Tannaim who state, in childbirth. He who said as children, it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Children die because of the sin of vows. What is the reason? For the vain I did hit your sons. But he who said in childbirth, from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

HALAKHAH: “Because of three sins women die in childbirth,” etc. There are Tannaim who state, as children. There are Tannaim who state, in childbirth. He who said as children, it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Children die because of the sin of vows. What is the reason? For the vain I did hit your sons. But he who said in childbirth, from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

Animal droppings. There are Tannaim who state, like olive cake and wood; and there are Tannaim who state, like straw and stubbles. He who says like olive cake and wood, small cattle. And he who says like straw and stubbles, large cattle.

Animal droppings. There are Tannaim who state, like olive cake and wood; and there are Tannaim who state, like straw and stubbles. He who says like olive cake and wood, small cattle. And he who says like straw and stubbles, large cattle.

It is forbidden to store away in anything which one has to distance from a wall. Rebbi Yose said, since we have stated that one may store away in straw, it follows that one need not distance it from a wall. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected: Was it not stated, one who rents o house from his neighbor may not use it as storage for produce? Why? Not because of the chaff? Rebbi Ḥanania said, because of the rats. Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, if it were because of the rats then even a storage for anything. Rebbi Shammai objected, does one not distance rocks from the wall? Then rocks are forbidden to hide away in. Rebbi Yose said, it is not that rocks produce heat but they become rusty and destroy the bottom of the wall. But was it not stated: One does not store away in stones. Explain it for silver ore. There are Tannaim who state, one does store in rocks, and there are Tannaim who state, one does not store. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says “one stores”, with gold or brass ore; he who says “one does not store”, with silver ore.

It is forbidden to store away in anything which one has to distance from a wall. Rebbi Yose said, since we have stated that one may store away in straw, it follows that one need not distance it from a wall. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected: Was it not stated, one who rents o house from his neighbor may not use it as storage for produce? Why? Not because of the chaff? Rebbi Ḥanania said, because of the rats. Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, if it were because of the rats then even a storage for anything. Rebbi Shammai objected, does one not distance rocks from the wall? Then rocks are forbidden to hide away in. Rebbi Yose said, it is not that rocks produce heat but they become rusty and destroy the bottom of the wall. But was it not stated: One does not store away in stones. Explain it for silver ore. There are Tannaim who state, one does store in rocks, and there are Tannaim who state, one does not store. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says “one stores”, with gold or brass ore; he who says “one does not store”, with silver ore.

“A Libyan donkey.” Some Tannaim state: “Not a lgdqs.” He who says libdyqos because of “Libyans and Nubians in His train.” He who says lgdqs, ἀμβάτης. What is ἀμβάτης? A donkey stallion.

“Female sheep may go out with their tail bound high,” some Tannaim state שְׁחוּזוֹת but some Tannaim state שׁוּזוֹת. He who says שׁוּזוֹת in finery, as you are saying dressed as prostitute with hidden thoughts. He who says שְׁחוּזוֹת as you are saying, “one does not sharpen the knife.” Wrapped, because of fine wool. Bound low, that no ram may mount her. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: He called it tied-down land, land which produces no fruit.

“Female sheep may go out with their tail bound high,” some Tannaim state שְׁחוּזוֹת but some Tannaim state שׁוּזוֹת. He who says שׁוּזוֹת in finery, as you are saying dressed as prostitute with hidden thoughts. He who says שְׁחוּזוֹת as you are saying, “one does not sharpen the knife.” Wrapped, because of fine wool. Bound low, that no ram may mount her. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: He called it tied-down land, land which produces no fruit.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A donkey may not go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. It was stated, “but it may walk around with it in the courtyard.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The same applies to the saddle. It was stated: “a donkey may go out with its saddle to get warm but one may not tie the load belt and not lower the strap under its tail.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: From where these things? As we have stated: “The practices of Sabbath … are like mountains hanging on a hair,” and you are saying so? He could have objected, what is the difference between a ladder and a package of straw? A ladder is substantial, a package of straw is not substantial. Rebbi Ḥanina said, he could have objected, what is the difference between a package of straw and an expert amulet? As we have stated, “it is forbidden that an animal go out with an expert amulet.” Rebbi Eudaimon said, he could have objected, what is the difference between a package of straw and a wound dressing? There are Tannaim who state, they may not go out with a package of straw; there are Tannaim who state, they may go out. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, this is a tannaitic difference. For him who said, they may go out with a package of straw; they may go out with a wound dressing. But for him who said, they may not go out with a package of straw; they may not go out with a wound dressing.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A donkey may not go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. It was stated, “but it may walk around with it in the courtyard.” Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The same applies to the saddle. It was stated: “a donkey may go out with its saddle to get warm but one may not tie the load belt and not lower the strap under its tail.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: From where these things? As we have stated: “The practices of Sabbath … are like mountains hanging on a hair,” and you are saying so? He could have objected, what is the difference between a ladder and a package of straw? A ladder is substantial, a package of straw is not substantial. Rebbi Ḥanina said, he could have objected, what is the difference between a package of straw and an expert amulet? As we have stated, “it is forbidden that an animal go out with an expert amulet.” Rebbi Eudaimon said, he could have objected, what is the difference between a package of straw and a wound dressing? There are Tannaim who state, they may not go out with a package of straw; there are Tannaim who state, they may go out. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, this is a tannaitic difference. For him who said, they may go out with a package of straw; they may go out with a wound dressing. But for him who said, they may not go out with a package of straw; they may not go out with a wound dressing.

“Nor a calf with gimun.” Rav Huna said, a small yoke. Rav Ḥisda said, a wooden tablet. Abba bar Rav Huna said, a spit. Some Tannaim state gimun. Some Tannaim state gimul. He who said gimun, to bend his head like a reed. He who said gimul, she brought him up with her after she had weaned him. He who said gimun supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said gimul supports Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Huna.

“Nor a calf with gimun.” Rav Huna said, a small yoke. Rav Ḥisda said, a wooden tablet. Abba bar Rav Huna said, a spit. Some Tannaim state gimun. Some Tannaim state gimul. He who said gimun, to bend his head like a reed. He who said gimul, she brought him up with her after she had weaned him. He who said gimun supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said gimul supports Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Huna.

Cahana asked Rav, may one go out with twisted chains? He told them, does one say, it is forbidden for a man to go out with his belt? Rav Huna instructed the wife of the Head of the Diaspora to put golden felt on the wig. Rebbi Joḥanan instructed these of the House of Con to put a patch with pearls on the jacket. Rebbi Ila said, anything connected to a garment is like the garment. And we have stated, one may go out with bells on his garment but one may not go out with bells around his neck. There are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are subject to impurity, and there are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are not subject to impurity. He who said, in both cases they are subject to impurity, if he made clappers for them, but he who said, in both cases they are not subject to impurity, if he did not make clappers for them. Even if he did make clappers for them they should be pure! Did not Rebbi Abbahu, Simeon bar Abba say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Bells on a crib. Two Amoraim. One said he can move it to and fro, only he should make no sound. But the other said, if he made a sound it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. There, although they are not made for sound on the Sabbath they are made for sound on weekdays; but here if they are not made for sound either on the Sabbath or weekdays, why did he make clappers for them?

Cahana asked Rav, may one go out with twisted chains? He told them, does one say, it is forbidden for a man to go out with his belt? Rav Huna instructed the wife of the Head of the Diaspora to put golden felt on the wig. Rebbi Joḥanan instructed these of the House of Con to put a patch with pearls on the jacket. Rebbi Ila said, anything connected to a garment is like the garment. And we have stated, one may go out with bells on his garment but one may not go out with bells around his neck. There are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are subject to impurity, and there are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are not subject to impurity. He who said, in both cases they are subject to impurity, if he made clappers for them, but he who said, in both cases they are not subject to impurity, if he did not make clappers for them. Even if he did make clappers for them they should be pure! Did not Rebbi Abbahu, Simeon bar Abba say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Bells on a crib. Two Amoraim. One said he can move it to and fro, only he should make no sound. But the other said, if he made a sound it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. There, although they are not made for sound on the Sabbath they are made for sound on weekdays; but here if they are not made for sound either on the Sabbath or weekdays, why did he make clappers for them?

There are Tannaim who switch. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan as our Mishnah. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, anything which heals is not forbidden because of ways of the Emorite. “דרגי דרגיבת because of ways of the Emorite; Rebbi Jehudah says because of the idol Dagon, and Dagon’s head and his two hands. דונו דני because of ways of the Emorite; Rebbi Jehudah says because of the idol Dan, they say, by the life of your god Dan. No no, because of ways of the Emorite; Rebbi Jehudah says because idolatry, they say no God, turn away from us, we have no desire to know Your ways.”

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

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

“Bast to make a hanger for a small or large sieve.” This you are saying about the inner part. But for the outer parts to make two loops for a small or large sieve. It was stated: “Palm fiber to make a handle for an Egyptian basket.” This you are saying for soft ones, but for hard ones to make a border. If one took out a willow container he is liable. Palm leaves two. Vine shoots, for planting two, as animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood. One who brings out two hairs from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail is liable because one uses them to make snares. Bristles from pig, there are Tannaim who state, two, and there are Tannaim who state, one. He who says two, of soft ones, but he who says one, of hard ones. Kernels, for planting, two, as animal feed a pig’s mouthful. What is its mouthful? One. Others say, the number five. If one took out calamint, hyssop, or thyme, if as human food, in the volume of a dried fig, if an animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood, if for sprinkling according to the measure of sprinkling.

“Bast to make a hanger for a small or large sieve.” This you are saying about the inner part. But for the outer parts to make two loops for a small or large sieve. It was stated: “Palm fiber to make a handle for an Egyptian basket.” This you are saying for soft ones, but for hard ones to make a border. If one took out a willow container he is liable. Palm leaves two. Vine shoots, for planting two, as animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood. One who brings out two hairs from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail is liable because one uses them to make snares. Bristles from pig, there are Tannaim who state, two, and there are Tannaim who state, one. He who says two, of soft ones, but he who says one, of hard ones. Kernels, for planting, two, as animal feed a pig’s mouthful. What is its mouthful? One. Others say, the number five. If one took out calamint, hyssop, or thyme, if as human food, in the volume of a dried fig, if an animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood, if for sprinkling according to the measure of sprinkling.

HALAKHAH: 3. “Leather to make an amulet,” etc. There are Tannaim who state, to cover the amulet. He who says to make an amulet, if it is soft. But he who says to cover the amulet, if it is hard.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable. “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”.

Samuel said, they taught this only about lower than ten [hand-breadths]. Therefore higher than ten [hand-breadths] it is forbidden. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar implied that even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it is permitted. For Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Aqiba learned from the carts; and were the carts not higher than ten [hand-breadths]? Some Tannaim state “how is this”; some do not state “how is this”. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion there is “how is this”, in Samuels’s opinion there is no “how is this”.

HALAKHAH: 2. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, if one opens the hem which is connected to the garment. Rebbi Yose said, if one opens a [split] garment which is made like two sheets. If shoe or sandal laces were dislocated, one removes and returns them, only one may not knot them. If its nose was dislocated, there are Tannaim who state, it is permitted to put it back, and there are Tannaim who state, it is forbidden to put it back. They wanted to say, he who says that it is permitted, if there is one hole; he who says that it is forbidden, if there are two holes. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in both cases it is following him who says that there are two holes. What about it? He who says that it is permitted, if they are loose; he who says that it is forbidden, if they are squeezed.

HALAKHAH: 2. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, if one opens the hem which is connected to the garment. Rebbi Yose said, if one opens a [split] garment which is made like two sheets. If shoe or sandal laces were dislocated, one removes and returns them, only one may not knot them. If its nose was dislocated, there are Tannaim who state, it is permitted to put it back, and there are Tannaim who state, it is forbidden to put it back. They wanted to say, he who says that it is permitted, if there is one hole; he who says that it is forbidden, if there are two holes. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in both cases it is following him who says that there are two holes. What about it? He who says that it is permitted, if they are loose; he who says that it is forbidden, if they are squeezed.

“Gospels and books of heretics, some Tannaim say, one tears out the Names and burns them; some Tannaim say, one burns them with their Names. Rebbi Tarphon said, I would hit my sons; if they came into my house I would burn them together with their Names. For if a persecutor would persecute me I would seek asylum in a pagan temple but would not seek asylum in heretics’ houses, for the worshippers of idolatry do not know about Him, how could they disavow Him? But the heretics know Him and disavow Him; about them David said, Your haters,o Eternal, I shall hate, etc. This homily they preached: If in order to bring peace between a man and his wife the verse commands that the Name written in holiness be erased, it is only logical that the books of heretics which propagate ill will and quarrel between Israel and their Father in Heaven should be burned with their Names.”

“Gospels and books of heretics, some Tannaim say, one tears out the Names and burns them; some Tannaim say, one burns them with their Names. Rebbi Tarphon said, I would hit my sons; if they came into my house I would burn them together with their Names. For if a persecutor would persecute me I would seek asylum in a pagan temple but would not seek asylum in heretics’ houses, for the worshippers of idolatry do not know about Him, how could they disavow Him? But the heretics know Him and disavow Him; about them David said, Your haters,o Eternal, I shall hate, etc. This homily they preached: If in order to bring peace between a man and his wife the verse commands that the Name written in holiness be erased, it is only logical that the books of heretics which propagate ill will and quarrel between Israel and their Father in Heaven should be burned with their Names.”

It was stated that one does not plan to circumvent the law. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one does plan to circumvent the law. Some Tannaim state, one saves and then invites; some Tannaim state, one invites and then saves. He who says, one saves and then invites follows him who says, one does plan to circumvent the law. But he who says, one invites and then saves follows him who says, one does not plan to circumvent the law.

It was stated that one does not plan to circumvent the law. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one does plan to circumvent the law. Some Tannaim state, one saves and then invites; some Tannaim state, one invites and then saves. He who says, one saves and then invites follows him who says, one does plan to circumvent the law. But he who says, one invites and then saves follows him who says, one does not plan to circumvent the law.

There are Tannaim who state, one moves dema. There are Tannaim who state, one does not move. Rebbi Eleazar said, he who said that one moves, if the heave was pure; but he who said that one does not move, if the heave was impure. Or about one where there was enough lift, but not about one where there was not enough lift. Who said that one moves? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer said, the seah which fell in is the seah which came up.

There are Tannaim who state, one moves dema. There are Tannaim who state, one does not move. Rebbi Eleazar said, he who said that one moves, if the heave was pure; but he who said that one does not move, if the heave was impure. Or about one where there was enough lift, but not about one where there was not enough lift. Who said that one moves? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer said, the seah which fell in is the seah which came up.

If he made a stone fence at the entrance to the alley, ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide, it permits the alley from inside and out. If there had been a stone fence, if it reduces to ten hand-breadths within three it needs a beam, otherwise it does not need a beam. There are Tannaim who state, within four [cubits]. He who says, within three [cubits], the rabbis. He who says, within four [cubits], Rebbi Meїr. If there was a slope in the middle of the alley, for those at the high end it acts as a ditch, for those at the low end as a stone fence.

If it was wide within fifteen cubits, Rebbi Abba and Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He makes a plank of slightly more than three hand-breadths and removes it two cubits from the wall. The slight addition is treated as lath, and it is permitted on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space. Should he not make a plank four hand-breadths wide? Did we not state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide? Rebbi Abba bar Pappai said, in order to permit both parts without beam. Some Tannaim state, he puts up a stick and a double-pointed stake; some Tannaim state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Yose said, practice follows him who said, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide.

If it was wide within fifteen cubits, Rebbi Abba and Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He makes a plank of slightly more than three hand-breadths and removes it two cubits from the wall. The slight addition is treated as lath, and it is permitted on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space. Should he not make a plank four hand-breadths wide? Did we not state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide? Rebbi Abba bar Pappai said, in order to permit both parts without beam. Some Tannaim state, he puts up a stick and a double-pointed stake; some Tannaim state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Yose said, practice follows him who said, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide.

If a beam protrudes from one wall but does not touch the second wall, or there were two opposite ones, if the gap between one and the other is three hand-breadths it needs another beam, otherwise it does not need another beam. There are Tannaim who state, four. He who says three, that a human may pass through. He who says four, that it be a place.

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

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

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

HALAKHAH: “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.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

“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.

So is the Mishnah: If Gentiles come from both sides, if Gentiles do not come from either side. “If Gentiles come from the East my eruv shall be in the West.” Some Tannaim state, to the East. He who says to the East, about these officers, he who says to the West, about these Romans.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a Sage comes from the East,” etc. Some Tannaim state, to the West. He who says, in the East, about these Sages. He who says, in the West, about a fundraiser.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One only measures with a rope of 50 cubits,” etc. How much is the measure of the Sabbath domain? 40 ropes. “Neither less” since it can be tightened and increases, “nor more” since it gets loose and loses. Some Tannaim state, one measures with a linen rope, but some Tannaim state, with a chain rope, and some Tannaim state, with a rope of four cubits. Rebbi Joshua said, there is no truer measure than with chains, but what can I do since in Prophets it is written ropes, a linen twine was in his hand and a measuring rod.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One only measures with a rope of 50 cubits,” etc. How much is the measure of the Sabbath domain? 40 ropes. “Neither less” since it can be tightened and increases, “nor more” since it gets loose and loses. Some Tannaim state, one measures with a linen rope, but some Tannaim state, with a chain rope, and some Tannaim state, with a rope of four cubits. Rebbi Joshua said, there is no truer measure than with chains, but what can I do since in Prophets it is written ropes, a linen twine was in his hand and a measuring rod.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One only measures with a rope of 50 cubits,” etc. How much is the measure of the Sabbath domain? 40 ropes. “Neither less” since it can be tightened and increases, “nor more” since it gets loose and loses. Some Tannaim state, one measures with a linen rope, but some Tannaim state, with a chain rope, and some Tannaim state, with a rope of four cubits. Rebbi Joshua said, there is no truer measure than with chains, but what can I do since in Prophets it is written ropes, a linen twine was in his hand and a measuring rod.

It was stated: Two cows were ploughing [in Jerusalem]. But is Jerusalem not a place where they used not to work on the Fourteenth? They were looking as if ploughing. There are Tannaim who stated: Two lights were burning. There are Tannaim who stated: Two sheets. Rebbi Phineas said, they do not disagree. He who said, two cows, two lights, on a weekday. He who said, two sheets, on the Sabbath.

It was stated: Two cows were ploughing [in Jerusalem]. But is Jerusalem not a place where they used not to work on the Fourteenth? They were looking as if ploughing. There are Tannaim who stated: Two lights were burning. There are Tannaim who stated: Two sheets. Rebbi Phineas said, they do not disagree. He who said, two cows, two lights, on a weekday. He who said, two sheets, on the Sabbath.

There are Tannaim who state “impurity of the dead”. There are Tannaim who state “by the impurity of the dead”. He who said “impurity of the dead”, about vessels that have to be rinsed. He who said “by the impurity of the dead”, about metal vessels. What is the reason? Any open vessel etc. is impure. [It is] impure but does not become a source of impurity to transmit impurity.

There are Tannaim who state “impurity of the dead”. There are Tannaim who state “by the impurity of the dead”. He who said “impurity of the dead”, about vessels that have to be rinsed. He who said “by the impurity of the dead”, about metal vessels. What is the reason? Any open vessel etc. is impure. [It is] impure but does not become a source of impurity to transmit impurity.

HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals. He told him, after it was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua.

It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning?

It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see, [but] you may see Heaven’s. There are Tannaim who state, not even Heaven’s. He who said, yours you may not see, you may see Heaven’s, if its dedication precedes its elimination. He who said, not even Heaven’s, if its dedication is after its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain it about sancta for which he is responsible in case of alienation following Rebbi Simeon.

It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see, [but] you may see Heaven’s. There are Tannaim who state, not even Heaven’s. He who said, yours you may not see, you may see Heaven’s, if its dedication precedes its elimination. He who said, not even Heaven’s, if its dedication is after its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain it about sancta for which he is responsible in case of alienation following Rebbi Simeon.

It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see; you may see it in the street; there are Tannaim who state, not even if in the street;. He who says, yours you may not see, you may see it in the street, if his renunciation of ownership precedes its elimination; he who said, not even in the street, if his renunciation of ownership follows its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it for sancta, etc.

It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see; you may see it in the street; there are Tannaim who state, not even if in the street;. He who says, yours you may not see, you may see it in the street, if his renunciation of ownership precedes its elimination; he who said, not even in the street, if his renunciation of ownership follows its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it for sancta, etc.

Rebbi Yose asked, if somebody benefited from Temple property less than the value of a perutah, is he liable for reimbursement? (He said to him.) Let us hear from the following: What he appropriated from sancta he has to repay, except what is less than the value of a perutah. There are Tannaim who state, to add. (He who said except, for) [he who said “except what is less than the value of a perutah” for reimbursement and] sacrifice. He who said “to add”, for reimbursement. As you are saying there, intentionally less than the value of a perutah, even though he does not pay the fifth and a reparation sacrifice he has to pay to the tribe, one says the same here. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, is that not a Mishnah? “Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth, if intentionally he is not liable for restitution even as value of wood”? He told them, there it is impossible to complete, but here it is possible to complete.

“And wilted”. There are Tannaim who state, “but not wilted”. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “and wilted”, about a stalk. He who said, “but not wilted”, about leaves.

If there is any fat in them. Unguent which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened.

If there is any fat in them. Unguent which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

“Rebbi Eliezer says, also women’s make-up.” There are Tannaim who state “make-up”; and there are Tannaim who state “treatments”. He who says “treatments”, so much more “make-up”; he who says “make-up”, but not “treatments”.

“Rebbi Eliezer says, also women’s make-up.” There are Tannaim who state “make-up”; and there are Tannaim who state “treatments”. He who says “treatments”, so much more “make-up”; he who says “make-up”, but not “treatments”.

“Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking.” Rebbi Hoshaia stated: And another one comes and kneads in their stead. There are Tannaim who state: Three qab wheat or four qab barley. There are Tannaim who state: Four qab wheat or three qab barley. He who said, three qab wheat, if they have fat, or four qab barley, if they have no fat. He who said, four qab wheat, if they are soft, or three qab barley, if they are hard.

“Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking.” Rebbi Hoshaia stated: And another one comes and kneads in their stead. There are Tannaim who state: Three qab wheat or four qab barley. There are Tannaim who state: Four qab wheat or three qab barley. He who said, three qab wheat, if they have fat, or four qab barley, if they have no fat. He who said, four qab wheat, if they are soft, or three qab barley, if they are hard.

Some Tannaim state it switched. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa following our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, an indication is that of Berakhot: “What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Jehudah says to the size of an egg.” Less than that one does not importune him to return. What is the difference between one and the other? One can be declared insignificant, the other cannot be declared insignificant. So far sacrificial meat; leavened matter from where? Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from what we have stated, “similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem”, this implies that what is incident to one is incident to the other.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”? He said to him, in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”? He said to him, in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.

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

It was stated: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the incense, and the incense the trimming of the lights.” There are Tannaim who state: “The blood of the daily sacrifice and its limbs precede the incense, and the incense the Pesaḥ, and the Pesaḥ the trimming of the lights, so that the libations of the daily sacrifice should be accompanying it.” There is nothing preceding the daily morning sacrifice and nothing later than the daily evening sacrifice except Pesaḥ and incense on Passover Eve. “ From where that nothing should precede the daily morning sacrifice? The verse says, on it ˋolah. And from where that nothing should invalidate the daily evening sacrifice? The verse says, on it šelamim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is not written here he arranges on it ˋolah but he arranges on it the ˋolah, that no elevation offering precede the daily morning sacrifice. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, people lacking expiation bring their expiatory sacrifices after the daily evening sacrifice to enable them to immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening. Rebbi Yudan said, that is, for a rich sufferer from skin disease. But a poor sufferer from skin disease, does he not bring a bird? Said Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon, does he not bring a reparation sacrifice?

Ḥizqiah stated: Do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice, the Torah called it “My sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, if Ḥizqiah had not stated this, do we find anything disqualified because of which one is liable for a purification sacrifice? If somebody leavens the disqualified. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says liable, if it became disqualified because of its leavening; he who says not liable, if it did not become disqualified because of its leavening.

Ḥizqiah stated: Do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice, the Torah called it “My sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, if Ḥizqiah had not stated this, do we find anything disqualified because of which one is liable for a purification sacrifice? If somebody leavens the disqualified. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says liable, if it became disqualified because of its leavening; he who says not liable, if it did not become disqualified because of its leavening.

The burning of the parts on leavening. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

The burning of the parts on leavening. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

If one broke a bird’s neck on leavening. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. This excludes the bird which is not slaughtered as sacrifice. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Him who said “liable” one understands as you are saying for freeing from liability. What is the reason of him who frees from liability? He said to him, one may infer punishment from punishment but one may not infer punishment from exemption.

If one broke a bird’s neck on leavening. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. This excludes the bird which is not slaughtered as sacrifice. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Him who said “liable” one understands as you are saying for freeing from liability. What is the reason of him who frees from liability? He said to him, one may infer punishment from punishment but one may not infer punishment from exemption.

HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time, and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself.

HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time, and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself.

HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time, and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself.

There are Tannaim who stated, he sticks from its buttocks to its mouth. In the opinion of this baraita teacher he turns it around.

If somebody ate the volume of an olive raw when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not eat from it raw, in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted he is under obligation not to eat raw; at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted he is not obligated not to eat raw.

If somebody ate the volume of an olive raw when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not eat from it raw, in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted he is under obligation not to eat raw; at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted he is not obligated not to eat raw.

If he broke a bone of it when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not break a bone in it etc., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted there is no do not break a bone in it; at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted there is do not break a bone in it.

If he broke a bone of it when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says that he is liable, do not break a bone in it etc., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted there is no do not break a bone in it; at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted there is do not break a bone in it.

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time, from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel, this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for.

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time, from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel, this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

Some Tannain stated, he is punished by extirpation for the Second, he is not punished by extirpation for the First. Some Tannain stated, he is punished by extirpation for the First, he is not punished by extirpation for the Second. And there are Tannaim who state, both for the First as for the Second he is punished by extirpation. He who says, he is punished by extirpation for the First; he shall bear his sin about the First. He who says, he is punished by extirpation for the Second; he shall bear his sin about the Second. He who says, both for the First as for the Second he is punished by extirpation, he shall bear his sin about the First and the Second. He who said, for the Second, he is not punished by extirpation except if he missed the First: For the sacrifice of the Eternal he did did not bring at its appointed time, the First, his sin he shall bear, about the Second.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it. Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it, is understandable, since it is written, a perfect lamb. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it, how does he confirm a perfect lamb? Even for offerings of the descendants of Noah it is impossible! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from all flesh, that they were complete in their limbs. There, some of them were for the altar, here nothing is for the altar. (Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, but here the altar has no part) But is was stated thus: Our forefathers in Egypt had three altars, the lintel and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, four: the door-step, and the lintel, and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, סַף is a vessel. Some Tannaim state, סַף is the door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, the cups, and the pruning knives, and the vessels for pouring. He who said, סַף is the door-step, when they used My door-step and their door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, is understandable; from the blood in the סַף. He who said, סַף is the door-step, how does he confirm that סַף may mean a vessel? He brings a cup as סַף, puts it down on the door-step, dunks and sprinkles.

HALAKHAH: Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it. Some Tannaim state, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were disqualifying for it, is understandable, since it is written, a perfect lamb. He who said, membranes over the eyes and cataracts were not disqualifying for it, how does he confirm a perfect lamb? Even for offerings of the descendants of Noah it is impossible! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from all flesh, that they were complete in their limbs. There, some of them were for the altar, here nothing is for the altar. (Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, but here the altar has no part) But is was stated thus: Our forefathers in Egypt had three altars, the lintel and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, four: the door-step, and the lintel, and two door-posts. Some Tannaim state, סַף is a vessel. Some Tannaim state, סַף is the door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, the cups, and the pruning knives, and the vessels for pouring. He who said, סַף is the door-step, when they used My door-step and their door-step. He who said, סַף is a vessel, is understandable; from the blood in the סַף. He who said, סַף is the door-step, how does he confirm that סַף may mean a vessel? He brings a cup as סַף, puts it down on the door-step, dunks and sprinkles.