temporarily

May a Cohen defile himself in honor of the public? It is stated: When there are two acceptable roads, one long and pure, the other one short and impure: If the public was walking on the long one, he goes on the long one; otherwise, he goes on the short one in honor of the public. That refers to impurity by their words; also for impurity that is from the words of the Torah? From what Rebbi Zeïra said, so great is the honor of the public that it temporarily pushes aside a prohibition, that means even impurity that is from the words of the Torah.

There, we have stated: “All tied-up water skins are pure except those of Arabs. Rebbi Meïr says, temporarily tied ones are pure, permanently tied ones are impure. Rebbi Yose says, all tied ones are pure.” Some Tannaïm state it inverted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Like our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, the indicator of Kelim is Kilaim, for if it were not so, what would be the difference between permanent and temporary tie? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: A permanent tie must be cut, a temporary tie does not have to be cut.

MISHNAH: A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, but one without a hole does not sanctify. Rebbi Simeon says, both are forbidden but neither one sanctifies. If a flower pot with a hole is temporarily put in a vineyard, if it grew by one twohundreth it is forbidden.

If one put five flower pots without holes under one vine, one has the disagreement between Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan: what makes forbidden is not forbidden and what is not forbidden will be forbidden? But if a single pot was placed temporarily under five different vines, everybody agrees that what makes forbidden will be forbidden.

If somebody was walking in public and discovered that he was wearing kilaim. Two Amoraïm, one said he is forbidden, the other one said he is permitted. The one who said he is forbidden, because it is a word of the Torah. The one who said he is permitted follows what R. Zeïra said: The dignity of the public is important enough to temporarily override a prohibition.

If somebody established a lien for another person on his field and then went and sold it; Rebbi Aḥa said, it is temporarily sold. Rebbi Yose said, even temporarily it is not sold. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following: He may induce his ox to flee; he cannot induce his field to flee. Think about it, if [the field] was sold to a violent person! Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Violent persons are apt to fall.

If somebody established a lien for another person on his field and then went and sold it; Rebbi Aḥa said, it is temporarily sold. Rebbi Yose said, even temporarily it is not sold. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following: He may induce his ox to flee; he cannot induce his field to flee. Think about it, if [the field] was sold to a violent person! Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Violent persons are apt to fall.

HALAKHAH: “A sapling of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim.” But no saplings are kilaim in a vineyard! So is the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi (the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard kilaim.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi) Abun said, if he brought a flower pot and temporarily put it under a vine.

It was stated: If he provined with permission, he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Only if the permission was permanent, not temporary. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Even temporary. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from the following: “If somebody digs a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut down as he works and the wood is his.” Is the wood not as if temporary? What does Rebbi Yose do with this? Roots always regrow; since roots do regrow it is as if permanent. Rebbi Mana said, the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan supports my father, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. In our case, if he gave permission to provine even temporarily, the proviner is not a robber.

“He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. But was this not temporarily? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word, was it like temporarily? Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi Abun] said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were (temporary) [permanent]. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin sewers. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin, that it should be an entity. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of (Rav) [Rebbi] Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection.

“He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. But was this not temporarily? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word, was it like temporarily? Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi Abun] said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were (temporary) [permanent]. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin sewers. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin, that it should be an entity. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of (Rav) [Rebbi] Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simai said, one who assembles a curved horn is liable, with a straight horn he is not liable. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, for the arms of a candelabra he is liable; for a hunter’s (whitewasher’s) rod he is not liable.” Why is he liable for the arms of a candelabra? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥuna both say, because of building. Why is he not liable for a hunter’s rod? Because it is from top to bottom. They objected, does not one who digs in the dunes work from top to bottom, and you are saying that he is liable? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, here temporarily, there permanent.

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

HALAKHAH: “There are four New Year’s Days,” etc. It is written, this month shall be for you the head of the months. For you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for years nor for Sabbatical periods nor for Jubilees nor for planting nor for vegetables. And I could say, for you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for kings nor for holidays. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Or is it only the second in the month? Any place where the second day in the month is intended it is explicit. Or is it only the second in the week? We do not find this count in the Torah. But is it not written, it was evening and it was morning, the second day? One makes no inferences from the Creation of the World. Which one is the second of the months and which one is the second of the years? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana. One said, he started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. But the other one, even if you switch it does not change anything. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: This month is for you, an exclusion. The first it be for you, [an exclusion.] An exclusion after an exclusion is to include for kings and holidays. Could one include for years, or for Sabbatical periods, or for Jubilees, or for planting, or for vegetables? Following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: He started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. And when he says, in the fourth year of his reign, it bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Samuel stated and disagreed: In the third month of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. From here that one counts months from the exodus from Egypt. Not only months, from where years? The Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year. Not only at that time, from where later? In the fortieth year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Not only temporarily, from where for later generations? It was in the 480th year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, etc. After the Temple had been built they started to count from its building: It was at the end of twenty years after Salomon built the two houses. They did not merit to count from its building, they started counting from its destruction: In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, on New Year’s Day, on the tenth of the month, etc. They did not merit to count for themselves, they started counting regnal years, [as it is written,] in year two of Darius; in year three of Cyrus, king of Persia. And I am saying, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is the indication: Any time the Ark is inside, private altars are forbidden; once it left, private altars are permitted. Rebbi Ze`ura asked before Rebbi Yasa: even temporarily, as in the case of Eli? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, “there”, “there”. Just as in the case of “there” mentioned there private altars are forbidden, so in the case of “there” mentioned here private altars are forbidden. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, in that case if there is no Ark is there no Pesaḥ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “appellation”, “appellation”. Just as in the case of “appellation” mentioned there private altars are forbidden, so in the case of “appellation” mentioned here private altars are forbidden. And so Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon were saying, Second Tithe in Nob and Gibeon. One understands Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, purification sacrifice and Pesaḥ for the individual on the public altar, no purification sacrifice and Pesah for the individual on a private altar. Following Rebbi Simeon? Since Rebbi Simeon said, “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it.” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted.

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

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

Is it free? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated: “Sojourner”, that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rebbi Mathias said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,” it is as if free from one side.

Is it free? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated: “Sojourner”, that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rebbi Mathias said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,” it is as if free from one side.

Is it free? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated: “Sojourner”, that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rebbi Mathias said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,” it is as if free from one side.

May a (person) [Cohen] defile himself in honor of the public? It is stated: When there are two acceptable roads, one long and pure, the other one short and impure: If the public was walking on the long one, he goes on the long one; otherwise, he goes on the short one in honor of the public. That refers to impurity by their words; also for impurity that is from the words of the Torah? From what Rebbi Zeïra said, so great is the honor of the public that it temporarily pushes aside a prohibition, that means even impurity that is from the words of the Torah.

“One who robbed a beam and built it into a large building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, he has to pay its worth to support the penitents. If he went into another person’s ruined building and rebuilt it without permission, one estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged. If he rebuilt it with permission, one estimates for him and his hand is advantaged. If he wanted to take his wood and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the settlement in the Land of Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Isaac asked: If somebody temporarily entered another person’s ruin to put down his bundle, when he wanted to take it up again does one not listen to him? When he heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had said, because of the settlement in the Land of Israel, he said: That is a statement. But if he built at a place unfit for building, or planted trees at a place unfit for planting, Rav said one estimates for him but one tricks him to permit entry both in summer and in winter. One said to him: Was that not already stated: “One estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged?”

HALAKHAH: “One does not divide the courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are outside the four cubits of the doors. Bar Kappara stated thus: One does not subdivide a courtyard unless there be eight cubits for each party. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are not acquired by him but they are for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package. Rebbi Jonathan asked: did they only say for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package temporarily? It was found stated: also the circular enclosure of a cistern has four cubits. They said in the House of Rebbi Yannai: the chicken coop also has four cubits.

HALAKHAH: “One does not divide the courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are outside the four cubits of the doors. Bar Kappara stated thus: One does not subdivide a courtyard unless there be eight cubits for each party. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are not acquired by him but they are for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package. Rebbi Jonathan asked: did they only say for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package temporarily? It was found stated: also the circular enclosure of a cistern has four cubits. They said in the House of Rebbi Yannai: the chicken coop also has four cubits.

HALAKHAH: “One does not divide the courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are outside the four cubits of the doors. Bar Kappara stated thus: One does not subdivide a courtyard unless there be eight cubits for each party. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits which they mentioned are not acquired by him but they are for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package. Rebbi Jonathan asked: did they only say for him to park his animal temporarily and unload his package temporarily? It was found stated: also the circular enclosure of a cistern has four cubits. They said in the House of Rebbi Yannai: the chicken coop also has four cubits.

Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he brought an idol into it. In the opinion of Rebbi [Eleazar] there are two houses. But have we not stated three? Here temporarily, there permanently.

Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol on it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two stones. But have we not stated “there are three stones”? Here temporarily, there permanently.

Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two Asherot. But have we not stated “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Here temporarily, there permanently.