understandable

The opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina is understandable. It is difficult to understand Rebbi Yoḥanan: Does one not pronounce the benediction over the light at all other days that one should extinguish it? And here, he makes the benediction over the light so that he should not extinguish it. How does Rebbi Yoḥanan handle this? Since he has wine, his light will not go out. Then he might say the benediction over the light at the end. In order not to disturb its timing from other Sabbaths.

“But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew”. But we have stated: “With a Gentile, they are like his produce.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sages who follow the line of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are really the Sages. They asked him, what is the reason? He told them, if you get whitehaired, I might tell you. What would he have told them? That they accepted tithes voluntarily. Samuel bar Abba asked: It is understandable that he did not tell them about pure food, because of a fence for pure food. He did not tell them about tithes, as a fence for tithes. He did not tell them about sacrifices; if he had told them, what would he have told them? For tithes, following him who says that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Sometimes, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden, and sometimes the straw is forbidden and the grain is permitted. How is that? If his sowing was permitted but later he trained the leaves of a vine over it, the straw is permitted but the grain is forbidden If he sowed where it was forbidden and then removed the overhanging growth, the straw is forbidden but the grain is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: It is understandable that the straw would be permitted but the grain forbidden. If the straw should be forbidden and the grain permitted, it grew while forbidden and you say is is permitted? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned an interrupted trellis. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Once Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri burned in Nagnegar. What did he burn? He burned between the trellis and the fence. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: It is understandable, if he burned an interrupted trellis then the words of the Sages disagree with his. But if he burned between the trellis and the fence, are there words of the Sages which disagree with his? He had not heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the trellis itself: Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden and sanctifies. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is forbidden but does not sanctify.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamai said before Rebbi Zeïra: It is understandable if they were planted thirty days before the New Year. But if they were not planted thirty days before the New Year? Come and see: A full year is counted for him, and you say so? He said to him: If it is so, even if they were planted thirty days before the New Year, should it not be forbidden until thirty days before the New Year? What about it? Rebbi Mana said, since it stands in the middle of its year, it has to finish its year.

Rebbi Ḥuna said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes [are from their words, it is understandable that Hillel instituted prozbol. But following him who says tithes] are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah [because it is an obligation of the person]? Rebbi Yose turned and said, (Deut. 15:2) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment is followed as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There, they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. As we have stated (Deut. 15:2): “this is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, these two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? (Lev. 25:10) “[All its] inhabitants.” In the time when its inhabitants lived on it, not when they went into exile. If they lived on it but intermingled, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee is operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the status of additional heave? He said to him, I am stating that as an isolated opinion. Do you mean for obligation or for freeing? If you say for obligation, that is understandable. If you say for freeing, if even Rebbi Jehudah, who permits from the non-earmarked, frees it, then the rabbis, who do not agree [to take] from the non-earmarked, certainly must so hold. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came: The additional heave is subject to tithes. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, which Mishnah? He did not answer him. He said to him, maybe that which we stated: “If he gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he does not have to give more.” Did we not state on this: “If he added, it is subject to tithes”?

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Saplings of heave that had become impure he may plant and make them heave but if they were heave from before they already were pushed aside. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Water that became impure is made to touch and may be used as water for Tabernacles but if it was water for Tabernacles from before it already is pushed aside. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Figs and grapes that had become impure one may squeeze and make them heave but if they were heave from before they already were pushed aside. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one squeezes less than the volume of olives and his wine is good even for libations. They said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees. Both about leniency and restriction? If you say about leniency, this is understandable. If you say about restriction, did we not state: “Until he removes what is edible?”

We have stated: “But he collects from under the sieve and eats.” Rav Ḥisda said, because it misses the action of the wind. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: It misses rest. But did we not state: “Wine after he cleaned it?” For him who says because it misses rest [it is understandable]. For him who says because it misses the action of the wind, it still misses [removal of] its yeast. Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidul objected: Did we not state: “Oil after it descended into the barrel?” For him who says because it misses rest [it is understandable]. For him who says because it misses the action of the wind, it still misses clearing up.

We have stated: “But he collects from under the sieve and eats.” Rav Ḥisda said, because it misses the action of the wind. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: It misses rest. But did we not state: “Wine after he cleaned it?” For him who says because it misses rest [it is understandable]. For him who says because it misses the action of the wind, it still misses [removal of] its yeast. Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidul objected: Did we not state: “Oil after it descended into the barrel?” For him who says because it misses rest [it is understandable]. For him who says because it misses the action of the wind, it still misses clearing up.

It is understandable for him who said, “[I swear] an oath that I shall not eat”, and he drank. But for him who said, “an oath that I shall not drink”, and he ate? Drinking is subsumed under eating, but eating is not subsumed under drinking.

It was stated: “If a Gentile grafted a food-tree on a futile tree, even though a Jew is not permitted to do this, it is obligated for ‘orlah.” From when does one count ‘orlah? From the moment it is planted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only those for which intent is important; for example carob trees from Ẓalmon or Gidud; but on a willow it is as if planted in the earth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even on a willow. But did we not state: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted it should be uprooted.” According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who will explain it by grafting on a willow it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said even on a willow, why should it be uprooted? There is a difference because they unite in the Sabbatical year. And that is what has been said, “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: There is no “grafted” here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, even for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no “grafted” here; for the past, certainly not to start out with.

Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Why is “Land, Land” written twice? To tell you that a house stands only on these two things. Why are [the others] included? Rebbi Jehuda ben Rebbi and Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman, one says for benedictions, the other says for measures. He who says for benedictions is understandable. He who says for measures, did we not state: “A shiny mark the size of half a bean”? That is not reliable. “The size of a lentil from a crawling thing”? That is not reliable.

How often does a person have to rise before an Elder? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: twice a day. Rebbi Eleazar said, once a day. Was it not stated thus: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, from where that an Elder should not importune? The verse says (Lev. 19:32): “Elder, but you should fear your God, I am the Eternal.” According to Rebbi Joḥanan, this is understandable. According to Rebbi Eleazar one should not get up at all! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That he should not see a group of old men and pass in front of them so they should rise before him. Just as they disagree here, so they disagree about greeting.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi (Yannai) in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: They asked Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, may a person sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a wife? He said to them, yes. To study Torah? Yes. For his livelihood? He did not respond. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: They asked Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, may a person sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a wife? He said to them, yes. To study Torah? Yes. For his livelihood they did not ask and he did not respond. According to Rebbi Jonah it is understandable: They did not ask, therefore he did not respond. According to Rebbi Yose, if they asked him, why did he not respond? When Rebbi Ḥanania came, Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: A person may sell to marry a wife and to study Torah, and a fortiori for his livelihood.

Rebbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to use anything from in it into the house or from the house into it? But we are dealing when it was indicating to them the geographic directions. This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six [hand-breadths]. But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons. We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons. It is reasonable that the House of Rebbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rebbi Yannai said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq learns if from the Wagons. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten [hand-breadths] high? Rebbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rebbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to use anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight.

An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen? He objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the breaking of the neck; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter. But slaughter by an outsider is valid! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving. These are only because of Sabbath rest. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

“Nor with a city of gold.” Rav Jehudah said, for example a Jerusalem of gold The rabbis of Caesarea said, פרוש טוק טקלין. It happened that Rebbi Aqiba made a city of gold for his wife. Rabban Gamliel’s wife saw her and became jealous. She came and mentioned it before her husband. He told her, if you had done for me what she did for him, for she sold the braids of her head, gave him, and he studied Torah. There, we have stated: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified for testimony.” It was stated, Rebbi Meïr declares liable. Between Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and the Sages declare not liable. Between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Eliezer permits and the Sages prohibit. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer it is difficult, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and Rebbi Eliezer permits.

“Nor with a city of gold.” Rav Jehudah said, for example a Jerusalem of gold The rabbis of Caesarea said, פרוש טוק טקלין. It happened that Rebbi Aqiba made a city of gold for his wife. Rabban Gamliel’s wife saw her and became jealous. She came and mentioned it before her husband. He told her, if you had done for me what she did for him, for she sold the braids of her head, gave him, and he studied Torah. There, we have stated: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified for testimony.” It was stated, Rebbi Meïr declares liable. Between Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and the Sages declare not liable. Between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Eliezer permits and the Sages prohibit. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer it is difficult, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and Rebbi Eliezer permits.

Rebbi Mana said, I heard the reason from Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? Rebbi Yose said, it is understandable that with a golden tooth which was expensive she should not go out, for if she lost it she would put it back. But what can you say about a replacement tooth? Still she would be embarrassed to tell the carpenter, make me another one. If she lost it she would put it back.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

Paragraph. “Similarly three villages forming a triangle,” etc. Samuel said, if they are in a line. Bar Qappara said, it they are like a tripod. Which one is the middle one? It is understandable for him who said, they are in a line. For him who said, they are like a tripod, which one is the middle one? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said, if you are measuring from one, the other is the middle one; if you are measuring from one, the other is the middle one. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, only if the middle one not be farther than 2’000 cubits. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Jocob bar Aḥa, did we not state: “if between the two outer ones are 141⅓ [cubits], the middle one makes all three [to be one].” To permit the two outer ones. If there were two, could the middle one be counted for either side? His problem was if there were two people walking. But if one person is walking, it is counted for either side.

It was stated: Whether he be a man or a woman. They wanted to say, he who said that it is clear, is understandable. He who said that it is not clear, should it not be clear for a man but clear for a woman? Rebbi Eleazar said, who is he who stated “woman”? Rabban Gamliel! As it was stated: Tabi the slave of Rabban Gamliel was putting on tefillin and the Sages did not interfere with him. Did they here interfere with him? It is the same for a slave or a woman.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are word of the Torah. In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, original impurity induces first degree derivative. Derivative impurity induces second degree derivative. Second degree impurity which touched first degree one remains in its place, second degree, since third degree which touches first degree becomes second degree.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha? Before Usha there was no burning for their words. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands.] Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning. The following are the six doubts: “On the doubt of a bet happeras, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar, on the doubt of spittle, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity on these one burns heave.

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].

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “They went, ate, and drank. In the evening they returned and red the Great Hallel.” What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Pamakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to Almighty God. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; Truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. Rebbi Mana said, it is ours. The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed, also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable.

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.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said, would it not be understandable if on the day of Atonement it were after the first watch and on holidays from midnight, that they should not become thirsty? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next say and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy {and make holy}. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

For the Eternal, to include the he-goat which is sent away that it can be disqualified for lacking time. This comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why is there said, lots? Should we not be concerned that maybe it is drawn for the Eternal? He explains it if he wants to draw lots.

The diadem. Some want to say, about blasphemers. Some want to say, about insolent ones. He who says about blasphemers is understandable, since it is written the stone sank in his forehead, and it is written, it shall be on his forehead permanently. He who says about insolent ones, you had the forehead of a whoring woman.

One does not ask two questions simultaneously. If they were asked, there are Tannaim who state, He answers the first but does not answer the second; and there are Tannaim who state, He answers the second but does not answer the first; and there are Tannaim who state, He answers neither the first nor the second. He who says, He answers the first but does not answer the second; from the following: David said, Eternal, God of Israel, etc., would the people of Qeˋilah surrender me into his hand, etc.? ]Would Saul descend, David asked incorrectly. Was it not necessary, would Saul descend, and if he descended, would the people of Qeˋilah surrender me into his hand?] He who said, He answers the second but does not answer the first; from the following: David said, would the people of Qeˋilah surrender me, etc. He who said, He answers neither the first nor the last, David asked the Eternal as follows, shall I pursue this troop, shall I reach it? David asked for mercy in this case, Eternal, God of Israel, please tell Your servant. You should know, since he asked two [questions] and He answered three [answers]: He said, pursue, for catching you will catch and saving you will save. There are Tannaim who state, he was hearing the voice; there are Tannaim who state, the writing was protruding. He who said, he was hearing the voice is understandable since it is written, he heard the voice. He who said, the writing was protruding, but there is no ח for the tribes, and there is no צ [and no ק] for the tribes! Abraham, Isaac, Jacob was written on them. But there is no ט for the tribes! All these are the tribes of Israel was engraved on them.

Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids, he is not liable.” Because he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids. Therefore if [he ate edible food,] drank drinkable fluids he is liable. Did he not say, an oath that I shall not eat? That is understandable following our Mishnah, where we are saying, “an oath that I shall not eat.” But for Rebbi who said, an oath that I shall not eat and shall not drink?

It is understandable for him who said, “{I swear} an oath that I shall not eat”, and he drank. Drinking is subsumed under eating. But for him who said, “an oath that I shall not drink”, and he ate? Is eating subsumed under drinking? Eating is not subsumed under drinking.

It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge. If it did come to his knowledge? Was it not stated: “From where that those liable for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, remain liable, but those liable for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it. [Why did he not say, if it was not known to him]. His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones.

“If the people of a city sent their sheqalim and these were stolen or lost.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since Rebbi Simeon said, sancta for whose alienation he is responsible are like his own property. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion, because of an instituted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion is understandable; “they have to swear to the city dwellers who have to replace them by new sheqalim.” Is that Rebbi Simeon’s? Even though the city dwellers agreed to pay, Temple property cannot be released without an oath.

It is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce is the gain of the Temple; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated, “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”

Solomon made ten tables: Solomon made ten tables and deposited them in the Temple Hall, five to the right and five to the left. If you would say, five to the North and five to the South, but the table is only qualified in the North, as it is said, and the table put on the North side. Why does the verse say, five to the right and five to the left? Five to the right of Moses’s table, and five to its left. Nevertheless, only Moses’s alone was used, as it is said, the table on which is the shew-bread. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, all of them were used, for it is said, the tables on which the shew-bread is. It was stated: They were put East and West, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, they were put North and South. He who says East and West is understandable; all of them are proper for Service. He who says, North and South, would then not the table be in the South and the candelabrum in the North? But was it not stated, the table was in the middle of the Temple, more to the inside, about two cubits away from the wall to the North, and opposite it the candelabrum in the South. The golden altar was in the middle of the Temple, dividing the Temple, inside, a little bit drawn to the North. All were put inside of a third of the Temple.

Rebbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to move anything from in it into the house or from the house into it? But we are dealing with the case when it was indicating to them the geographic directions. This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six {hand-breadths}. But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons. [We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons.] It is reasonable that the House of Rebbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rebbi Yannai said, [the ark was nine and] the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq learns if from the Wagons. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten {hand-breadths} high? Rebbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rebbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to move anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight.

Excess sticks that exceed the sukkah are considered part of the sukkah. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Only if it is on the entire front. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even at a wall. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Even not at a wall. In the opinion of Rebbi Yasa it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, how could you be lenient in this if its sunshine is more than its shade?

How for saplings? It was stated: “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits of this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” What is the reason? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And in year [the fourth]. How do you understand this? Rebbi Ze`ira said, three years they shall be uncircumcised, and in year. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is understandable if he planted it 30 days before the New Year. But if it was not planted 30 days before the New Year? Come and see: Is not a full year being counted for him, and you say so? He said to him: If it is so, even if he planted 30 days before the New Year, should it not be forbidden until 30 days before the New Year? What about it? Rebbi Mana said, since it stands in the middle of its year, it has to finish its year.

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

The Mishnah either follows Rebbi Yose on the eleventh or Rebbi Meïr on the twelfth. But it is difficult for Rebbi Meïr. Was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the thirteenth of it is Nikanor Day.” What is Nikanor Day? “A commander of the Greek government was passing by on his way to Alexandria when he saw Jerusalem, and insulted, vituperated, and blasphemed and said, when I shall return in peace I shall destroy this tower. One of the dynasty of the Hasmoneans went out against him, killed his soldiers until he came to his car. When he came to his car he hacked off his hand and cut off his head, stuck them on a piece of wood and wrote under it, the mouth which spoke in guilt and the hand stretched out in haughtiness, and hung it on a pole outside Jerusalem.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself it forbidden because of the fourteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden. And also for Rebbi Meïr it is not difficult; was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the fourteenth and the fifteenth is Purim, not to eulogize. On the sixteenth they started to build the wall of Jerusalem, not to eulogize.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself is forbidden because of the fifteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden. [And also for Rebbi Meïr it is not difficult; was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed.]

The Mishnah either follows Rebbi Yose on the eleventh or Rebbi Meïr on the twelfth. But it is difficult for Rebbi Meïr. Was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the thirteenth of it is Nikanor Day.” What is Nikanor Day? “A commander of the Greek government was passing by on his way to Alexandria when he saw Jerusalem, and insulted, vituperated, and blasphemed and said, when I shall return in peace I shall destroy this tower. One of the dynasty of the Hasmoneans went out against him, killed his soldiers until he came to his car. When he came to his car he hacked off his hand and cut off his head, stuck them on a piece of wood and wrote under it, the mouth which spoke in guilt and the hand stretched out in haughtiness, and hung it on a pole outside Jerusalem.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself it forbidden because of the fourteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden. And also for Rebbi Meïr it is not difficult; was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the fourteenth and the fifteenth is Purim, not to eulogize. On the sixteenth they started to build the wall of Jerusalem, not to eulogize.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself is forbidden because of the fifteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden. [And also for Rebbi Meïr it is not difficult; was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed.]

“On the seventeenth of it Gentiles attacked the remainder of the Sopherim at the city of Khalkis and Bet-Zabdin and there was relief.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the {day} itself. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? [The day before? Is not the day itself forbidden for him?] Rebbi Yose said, all these matters neither support nor contradict either Rebbi Meïr or Rebbi Yose; they only come to report the days on which miracles were done for Israel. You have to understand that this is so since we have stated: “On the New Moon of Nisan the Daily Offering was settled, one may not eulogize.” Without this is he not already forbidden because of the New Moon? “But on Sabbath and holidays one fasts before and after them. What is your reason to be lenient with these and restrictive with those? For these are words of the Torah, and words of the Torah do not need reinforcement. But those are words of the Sopherim, and words of the Sopherim need reinforcement.” That is what you were saying, as long as Megillat Ta`anit was not abolished. But since Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, all these were abolished. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was repeating, “it happened that in Lydda they decided on a fast-day on Ḥanukkah. They said about Rebbi Eliezer that he got a haircut, and about Rebbi Joshua that he took a {thermal} bath. Rebbi Joshua said to them, go and fast because you fasted.” And you are saying, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished? Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying that Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, Ḥanukkah and Purim were not abolished.

What is the Great Hallel? Rebbi Parnakh in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah; Give thanks to the supreme Power; truly, His kindness is forever. Give thanks to the Master of masters; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Joḥanan said, on condition of who stand in the Eternal’s house. Why these two chapters? Because rainfall is included in them. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is understandable, for it is written, He brings up vapors from the ends of the earth. How is it for Rebbi Ḥaninah? Because it is written, He gives nourishment to all flesh; truly, His kindness is forever. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Simon, both are saying, ours. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, ours. Bar Qappara said, ours. Bar Qappara follows his opinion, as it was stated: “during the existence of a third group they never reached I am loving; truly the Eternal listened to my voice, my supplication, since its people were few.” Bar Qappara stated, this is the Great Hallel. A patrician stood before the Ark; he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying. This implies that it is not ours. [Rebbi Mana said, it is ours.] The miracle was great; therefore he said to them, repeat after me what I am saying

The Mishnah either follows Rebbi Yose on the eleventh or Rebbi Meïr on the twelfth. But it is difficult for Rebbi Meïr. Was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the thirteenth of it is Nikanor Day.” What is Nikanor Day? “A commander of the Greek government was passing by on his way to Alexandria when he saw Jerusalem, and insulted, blasphemed, and vituperated and said, when I shall return in peace I shall destroy this tower One of the Hasmoneans went out against him, killed his soldiers until he came to his car When he came to his car he hacked off his hand and cut off his head, stuck them on a piece of wood and wrote under it, the mouth which spoke in guilt and the hand stretched out in haughtiness, and hang it on a pole outside Jerusalem.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself it forbidden because of the fourteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden. And also for Rebbi Meïr it is not difficult; was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the fourteenth and the fifteenth is Purim, not to eulogize. On the sixteenth they started to build the wall of Jerusalem, not to eulogize.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself is forbidden because of the fifteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden.

The Mishnah either follows Rebbi Yose on the eleventh or Rebbi Meïr on the twelfth. But it is difficult for Rebbi Meïr. Was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the thirteenth of it is Nikanor Day.” What is Nikanor Day? “A commander of the Greek government was passing by on his way to Alexandria when he saw Jerusalem, and insulted, blasphemed, and vituperated and said, when I shall return in peace I shall destroy this tower One of the Hasmoneans went out against him, killed his soldiers until he came to his car When he came to his car he hacked off his hand and cut off his head, stuck them on a piece of wood and wrote under it, the mouth which spoke in guilt and the hand stretched out in haughtiness, and hang it on a pole outside Jerusalem.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself it forbidden because of the fourteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden. And also for Rebbi Meïr it is not difficult; was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the fourteenth and the fifteenth is Purim, not to eulogize. On the sixteenth they started to build the wall of Jerusalem, not to eulogize.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself is forbidden because of the fifteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden.

“On the seventeenth of it Gentiles attacked the remainder of the Sopherim at the city of Khalkis and Bet-Zabdin and there was relief.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the {day} itself. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? Rebbi Yose said, all these matters neither support nor contradict either Rebbi Meïr or Rebbi Yose; they only come to report the days on which miracles were done for Israel. You have to understand that this is so since we have stated: “On the New Moon of Nisan the Daily Offering was settled, one may not eulogize.” Without this is it not already forbidden to him because of the New Moon? “But on Sabbath and holidays one fasts before and after them. What do you understand to be lenient with these and restrictive with those? For these are words of the Torah, and words of the Torah do not need reinforcement. But those are words of the Sopherim, and words of the Sopherim need reinforcement.” That is what you were saying, as long as Megillat Ta`anit was not abolished. But since Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, all these were abolished. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Jonathan said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was repeating, “it happened that in Lydda they decided on a fast-day on Ḥanukkah. They said about Rebbi Eliezer that he got a haircut, and about Rebbi Joshua that he took a {thermal} bath. Rebbi Joshua said to them, go and fast because you fasted.” And you are saying, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished? Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying that Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, Ḥanukkah and Purim were not abolished.

From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy and make holy. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil and the blood. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s. If none of Moses’s was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s husband and son went overseas,” etc. How do you consider this situation, comparing to witnesses of death or witnesses of divorce? If you compare it to witnesses of death, it disagrees with the (rabbis there). If you compare it to witnesses of divorce, it disagrees (both with the rabbis here and those there). Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses said, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses said, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave. There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he comes he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certain testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, and two say his father died while not in possession, that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was married, divorced, and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave.

“A male nine years and one day old makes a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest.” In the opinion of R. Joḥanan who will explain this for allotments it is understandable; since he acquires by allotment he makes a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who must explain this for a marriage, she should also be free from levirate or ḥalîṣah, as we have stated: “If he married a woman, that one is free from levirate or ḥalîṣah.” Rebbi Abin said, following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it comes following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated so: If a male nine years and one day old up to twelve years and one day old grew two pubic hairs, they are warts. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, they are indicators [of puberty]. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if they were still there at the time of indicators.

It is written: “And David sang this elegy”, etc., “and said: To teach the people of Judah archery.” Is it reasonable that he had to teach the people of Judah, who was he? But David said, when the just have disappeared, the haters come and attack Israel. “Is that not written in the book Yashar?” Two Amoraïm. One says, that is the book of Genesis. But the other said, that is the fifth of Numbers. The one who said, this is the book of Genesis, is understandable. But the one who said, that is the fifth of Numbers, what war is reported there? “The Children of Israel travelled from the springs of Bene-Ya‘aqon to Mosera; there Aaron died.” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the Cohen ascended Mount Hor and died there.” But when Aaron died and the clouds of glory disappeared, the Canaanites desired to attack Israel. That is what is written: “The Canaanite, the king of Arad, dweller in the Southland, heard that Israel came by the way of the scouts.” What is “the way of the scouts”? He heard that Aaron died, the great scout, who did scout the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and travelled eight stations backward. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed eight families from them. They also killed four of their families. That is what is written: “The Amramite, the Yiṣharite, the Ḥebronite, the Uzielite.” When were they re-established? In David’s time. That is what is written: “In his days, the just will blossom”. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not perform kindness for that just man. They went and organized a eulogy and performed kindness for that just man. The verse considers it as if he died and was buried there where they performed kindness for that just man.

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

Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for curse and oath? Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for curse and oath? Some Tannaїm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaїm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: It was written on the stones of the dwelling place, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, it was written on the stones of the altar. He who says, it was written on the stones of the dwelling place, every day the peoples of the world were sending their stenographers and they carried away the Torah which had been written in seventy languages. He who says, it was written on the stones of the altar, were they not only for a short time and then were hidden? That was another wonder, that the Holy One, praise to Him, gave insight to every people and they carried away the Torah which had been written in seventy languages. For him who says, it was written on the stones of the dwelling place, it is understandable that “you shall whitewash them with lime.” But he who says, it was written on the stones of the altar, how does he uphold “ “you shall whitewash them with lime”? Between the stones. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “The peoples will be lime incinerators”, from the lime they took their death sentence. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “But the Gentiles will be totally destroyed,” from Ḥoreb they took their death sentence.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: “Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses say, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses say, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave.” There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he returns he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certified testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, [and two say his father died while not in possession,] that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was divorced and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was preliminarily married, and two are saying, she was not preliminarily married, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others came and identified the man who was betrothed to her. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not get married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says. If two are saying, she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed. Rebbi Jonah compares that to fat. If two said, X ate fat, and two said, X did not eat fat, did he not have to bring a “hung” reparation sacrifice because of the doubt? Here, he should give a bill of divorce because of the doubt. Rebbi Yose said to him, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: If two are saying she had been betrothed and two are saying she had not been betrothed, she should not get married. The end disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: If she married she must leave. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Yose did not say that she may marry, nor did Rebbi Jonah say if she married she must leave, he said only, do not compare this to fat, because even if he says my conscience bothers me, he brings a “hung” reparation sacrifice.

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! “If somebody eats heave intentionally he pays the principal but not the fifth.” In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said he pays, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. He explains following Rebbi Meïr who says, he is flogged and he pays.

Now estimates, bans, exchanges, and dedications were in the same paragraph, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state? ‘Araphin, ‘araṣin, ‘araqin? Temupha, temuna, temuqa? Hegder, hegzer, hegres. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of the Temple. But according to him who says, unspecified bans are for the priests? Why did we not state ‘substitute names for heave’? But if it were stated, what would we state? Terupha, teruṣa, teruqa?

This does not disagree with what Rebbi Joḥanan said, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if an agent handed over to another agent, the first one is responsible. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Because of a condition of the divorce. What is the difference between them? If the husband came earlier and took it. If you say, because of a condition of the divorce, that is understandable. If you say, because I do not want to see my valuables in somebody else’s hand, his valuables are not in somebody else’s hand. Is it the same for preliminary marriages? What is the difference between divorces and preliminary marriages? One can divorce through the agency of anybody. One cannot preliminarily marry through the agency of anybody.

“You are free but your child will be a slave,” her child is like her, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But the Sages say, he did not do anything. Rebbi Eleazar said, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: Both are free. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are slaves. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, it is understandable; there is a disagreement. What is the disagreement following Rebbi Eleazar? But it must be so: His words stand, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But the Sages say, he did not do anything. What means “he did not do anything”? Rebbi Eleazar said, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: Both are free. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are slaves. Following Rebbi, since Rebbi said that a person can free half of his slave.

Some Tannaïm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaïm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for oath? Some Tannaïm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaïm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

Some Tannaïm state: Since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath. Some Tannaïm state: This one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to curse and oath, so also all who have to swear are under curse and oath, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to curse and oath, but no others who have to swear are under curse and oath, can you infer for rollover only but not for oath? Some Tannaïm state: Since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. Some Tannaïm state: This one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen. They wanted to say, the one who said, since this one is subject to Amen, Amen, so also all who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, is understandable. The one who said, this one is subject to Amen, Amen, but no others who have to swear are under Amen, Amen, did one not infer rollover of oaths from the suspected wife? Can you infer for rollover only but not for Amen, Amen?

If he grabbed a tetradrachma from her hands, returned it to her, and at the moment of delivery said to her: “You are preliminarily married to me”, then she is preliminarily married. By what was she preliminarily married? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: She wants to be preliminarily married to him and he would owe her a tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose said, if this had been formulated for a vessel, it would be understandable. A tetradrachma can be exchanged.

“One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” That disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar in two respects. If during its lifetime, it disagrees following the rabbis; if after breaking the neck, it disagrees following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Explain it that it died. If he broke its neck, it is forbidden for usufruct, but Rebbi Simeon permits it. “Breaking the neck, breaking the neck.” Since “breaking the neck” mentioned there implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct, so “breaking of the neck” mentioned here implies that one has to break its neck, [bury it,] and it is forbidden for usufruct. Following Rebbi Eleazar it is understandable. He permits during its lifetime; he needs an argument to forbid it after the breaking of the neck. Following Rebbi Joḥanan it is difficult. If it is forbidden during its lifetime, not so much more after breaking of its neck? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: It is needed following the rabbis, lest you say that since the Torah combined the breaking of its neck with its redemption, and its redemption makes it profane, so also the breaking of its neck should make it profane. Do we find anything whose lifting makes profane and which is forbidden for usufruct? They objected: There is ṭevel containing the tithe of the poor which becomes totally profane by its lifting; but Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rebbi: A person eating produce which is ṭevel for the tithe of the poor is guilty of a deadly sin. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: So the rabbis answer Rebbi Simeon: Do we find anything that needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct? He replied to them: There is the first-born human who needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct.

Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, our procedures are like their procedures, and one said, our procedures are not like their procedures. He who said, our procedures are like their procedures, is understandable. He wo said, our procedures are not like their procedures, how does he understand Jehudah said, Memukhan said? They agreed with what Jehudah said, they agreed with what Memukhan said.

It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge. If it did come to his knowledge? Was it not stated: “From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it, did not the Day of Atonement already atone? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Levi [Sokhia], the Mishnah speaks of one who rebels against the day of Atonement. Why did he not say, if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement? His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, {but one dependent} on the Court is not liable.

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. It is written: If from the eyes of the congregation, from him who is appointed as eyes of the congregation. It is written, they shall stand there with you. Just as you are neither proselyte, nor Gibeonite, nor a bastard. Proselytes are reasonable, but bastards? does the court appoints bastards? Rav Ḥuna said, when they breached the rules and appointed. Rebbi Ḥanania, Rebbi Mana. One said, as part of the Seventy; the other said, apart from the Seventy. He who said, apart from the Seventy, is understandable. But he who said, as part of the Seventy, therefore not apart from the Seventy? Since he is not suitable for ordination, he is considered like a stone.

“Even if she was married,” even if pregnant, even if nursing, and even if she was bleeding all seven [days] for a boy or all fourteen for a girl. Does she have a charm in her hand? After [the birth of] a boy seven [days], after a girl fourteen, but only if she stopped during her period of purity. As it was stated: If she stopped during her period of purity and had no discharge, but later she had a discharge; this case came before the Sages who said that her timing was exact. In Rav’s opinion, who says that all is one source but the Torah purified it, it is understandable. In Rebbi Yannai’s opinion, who says that all is one source but it changes, it is in order. In Levi’s opinion, who says that there are two sources, should not her timing be exact even if she does not stop during her period of purity? Rebbi Mana said, the reason of Levi is that since she became used to pure blood, she might become used to impure blood. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi can explain what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, the timing of a pregnant or a nursing woman who had stopped for three periods is exact.” On that it was stated: The days of her pregnancy and her nursing add up to three periods. Can he think that there is only one source?

It is understandable that R. Yoshia disagrees with R. Huna and with R. Chanan b. Rabbah, since they lay down a [minimum] measurement in the extent [of the Sukkah] while he does not lay down a minimum measurement as to the extent [thereof];

It is understandable to the one who says that “Command the children of Israel” [should be read], because sacrifices are written in it. But according to the one who says that “When you count” should be read, are sacrifices written there? It is the shekels for the sockets that are mentioned there!

It is understandable according to the opinion that it was the eight verses, as that would be why it says "in the Torah scroll of God". However according to the opinion that it was the cities of refuge, why does it say "in the Torah scroll of God"? This is what it was saying, And Yehoshua wrote in his book these matters that were written in the Torah scroll of God.

But with regards to cities of refuge [going after the branches doesn't always result in a stringency], it is understandable if the trunk is outside and the branches inside, just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may not kill him [the murderer], so too on the trunk he may not kill him. But if the trunk is inside and the branches outside [then it won't result in a stringency to say that] just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may kill him, so too on the trunk he may kill him, Because he is inside [the boundary]!?

And an impure person who ate sacrificial food: [Receiving malkus by] enters the Temple while impure is understandable as both the punishment and the scriptural warning are written in the Torah. The punishment is written (Numbers 19,13) "The Tabernacle of G-d he has defiled and he shall be cut off". The scriptural warning is written (Numbers 5,3) "And he shall not defile the camps". But as for an impure person who ate sacrificial [meats] the punishment is easily understandable as it is written (Leviticus 7,20) "And the soul that eats meat from the alter of the Sh'lamim that are for G-d while his impureness is upon him will be cut off", only from where is the scriptual warning derived?

And an impure person who ate sacrificial food: [Receiving malkus by] enters the Temple while impure is understandable as both the punishment and the scriptural warning are written in the Torah. The punishment is written (Numbers 19,13) "The Tabernacle of G-d he has defiled and he shall be cut off". The scriptural warning is written (Numbers 5,3) "And he shall not defile the camps". But as for an impure person who ate sacrificial [meats] the punishment is easily understandable as it is written (Leviticus 7,20) "And the soul that eats meat from the alter of the Sh'lamim that are for G-d while his impureness is upon him will be cut off", only from where is the scriptual warning derived?

It is understandable why Reish Lakash does not hold like Rebbi Yochanon, [as he can say that] he does not learn that gezaira shava. But what is the reason that Rebbi Yochanon does not say like Reish Lakash? [Rebbi Yochanon] would say to you, [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is giving a scriptual warning for [consuming] Terumah [while impure],