usable

"For regarding the souls of such men I have spoken unto you aforetime in a similitude, saying: 'If thy brother sinneth against thee, bring him over between thee alone and him. If he hearkeneth unto thee, thou wilt win thy brother; if he hearkeneth not unto thee, take with thee yet another. If he hearkeneth not unto thee and the other, bring him to the assembly. If he hearken not unto the others, let him be for you as a transgressor and as a stumbling-block.'--That is: If he is not usable in the first mystery, give him the second; and if he is not usable in the second give him the three, assembled together, which is 'the assembly'; and if he is not usable in the third mystery, let him be for you as a stumbling-block and as a transgressor.

"For regarding the souls of such men I have spoken unto you aforetime in a similitude, saying: 'If thy brother sinneth against thee, bring him over between thee alone and him. If he hearkeneth unto thee, thou wilt win thy brother; if he hearkeneth not unto thee, take with thee yet another. If he hearkeneth not unto thee and the other, bring him to the assembly. If he hearken not unto the others, let him be for you as a transgressor and as a stumbling-block.'--That is: If he is not usable in the first mystery, give him the second; and if he is not usable in the second give him the three, assembled together, which is 'the assembly'; and if he is not usable in the third mystery, let him be for you as a stumbling-block and as a transgressor.

"For regarding the souls of such men I have spoken unto you aforetime in a similitude, saying: 'If thy brother sinneth against thee, bring him over between thee alone and him. If he hearkeneth unto thee, thou wilt win thy brother; if he hearkeneth not unto thee, take with thee yet another. If he hearkeneth not unto thee and the other, bring him to the assembly. If he hearken not unto the others, let him be for you as a transgressor and as a stumbling-block.'--That is: If he is not usable in the first mystery, give him the second; and if he is not usable in the second give him the three, assembled together, which is 'the assembly'; and if he is not usable in the third mystery, let him be for you as a stumbling-block and as a transgressor.

Rebbi Jacob bar Savdi said: I asked the question before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference between her and him who breaks a clay amphora in order to eat a dried fig from it? He said to me: But it says afterwards, “only he should have no intent to make it into a usable vessel.” And here when he has the intention of making her a married woman it is as if he had the intention of making her into a vessel. Rav Isaac bar Rav Meshirshia said similarly: What is the difference between her and him who opens a boil on the Sabbath? He said to him, but it says afterwards: “only he should have no intention of making a permanent opening.” And here when he has the intention of making her a married woman it is as if he had the intention of making her into a vessel.

MISHNAH: These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical: A plough and all its implements, a yoke, a winnowing fork and an axe. But he may sell a hand sickle, a grain sickle, a carriage and all its implements. This is the principle: Everything that is used only for its work is forbidden; [if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted. The seller may sell five oil amphoras and fifteen wine amphoras because so much one brings from ownerless property. If he brought more than that amount, it is permitted. He may sell to Gentiles in the Land and to Jews outside of the Land. The House of Shammai say, one may not sell to him a ploughing cow during the Sabbatical but the House of Hillel permit it because he might slaughter it. One may sell him produce even during the sowing season and lend him one's measuring device even though one knows that he has workers, and one may exchange coins for him even though one knows that he has workers. In all cases it is forbidden if specified.

HALAKHAH: “These are the implements”, etc. Rebbi Jonah said: So is the Mishnah: “These are the implements which the professional may not sell during the Sabbatical to a person suspected of violating the Sabbatical.” If one does not know, what is the rule? Since it was stated “[if it is usable] for both forbidden and permitted [work] it is permitted”, that means that it is permitted if one does not know.

May one make dyes for humans from animal feed? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from animal feed since one may use animal feed for a wound dressing. May one make dyes for humans from materials for wound dressings? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from wound dressing materials since one may use wound dressing materials for a wound dressing. The only question is: May one make animal dyes from human food? Just as you say for human food that one may use it to make human dyes even though one may not use it for wound dressing, similarly animal feed, though one may not use it for animal wound dressing, should be usable for animal dyes. Rebbi Yose said, why may one make dyes from human food? Because human dyes have holiness. Should one be able to make animal dyes from animal feed when animal dyes have no holiness?

If he said, what is below is heave, above all is profane, or what is below is all profane, above is heave, it depends on his opinion. Also for a miqweh it is the same: If he said, all water below is usable, above is unusable, or all water below is unusable, above is usable, it depends on his opinion.

If he said, what is below is heave, above all is profane, or what is below is all profane, above is heave, it depends on his opinion. Also for a miqweh it is the same: If he said, all water below is usable, above is unusable, or all water below is unusable, above is usable, it depends on his opinion.

Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yasa said, is everything usable for lulab subject to tithes and everything not usable for lulab not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, there is one that grew in a form or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes! It is reasonable [to hold that] Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written (Lev. 23:40) “fruit” and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes.

Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yasa said, is everything usable for lulab subject to tithes and everything not usable for lulab not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, there is one that grew in a form or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes! It is reasonable [to hold that] Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written (Lev. 23:40) “fruit” and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes.

Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yasa said, is everything usable for lulab subject to tithes and everything not usable for lulab not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, there is one that grew in a form or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes! It is reasonable [to hold that] Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written (Lev. 23:40) “fruit” and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes.

Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yasa said, is everything usable for lulab subject to tithes and everything not usable for lulab not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, there is one that grew in a form or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes! It is reasonable [to hold that] Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written (Lev. 23:40) “fruit” and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”

“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so? They objected, are there not the other kinds which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated: “A strongman, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question.

A wall, and a tree, and a copse of reeds are counted as double columns. If they grew by themselves one may carry there up to an area of two bet se’ah. If he planted them with his hands one may carry there even one or two bet kor. If there was one large well and he made [the double columns] for one half but not for the other half. For the half for which he made it it is permitted, for the half for which he did not make it it is forbidden. If there were two, could the space in-between be considered for both sides? What is his problem? If both were used to fill; but if only one was used to fill it is usable for both sides.

MISHNAH: If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for public sacrifices, they shall be given to the artisans as their wages, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not they way, but from it one sets apart the artisans’ wages and redeems it on the artisan’s money; one gives it to the artisans as their wages and then buys it back from them from the new disbursement. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Joshua says, the males themselves should be brought as elevation sacrifices, and the females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the remaining property be used for upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Aqiba says, I agree with the words of Rebbi Eliezer against the words of Rebbi Joshua, since Rebbi Eliezer is uniform in his rules but Rebbi Joshua splits. Rebbi Pappaeus said, I heard according to the words of both of them. If somebody dedicates explicitly, following the words of Rebbi Eliezer; if the dedication is unspecified, following the words of Rebbi Joshua. If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were things fit for the altar, wines, oils, or birds. Rebbi Eleazar says, they shall be sold to people needing these kinds and from the proceeds one shall bring elevation sacrifices; but the remainder of the property shall be used for the upkeep of the Temple.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there were items usable for any public sacrifices.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. What is Ben Azzai’s reason? For Temple property cannot be redeemed by work, only by coins.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Closed pans, if he made them before the holiday he may not open them on the holiday since he would be like one who makes a vessel usable on the holiday.

MISHNAH: Not profane I shall not eat from yours, not usable, not pure, pure, or impure, leftover, or mushy, is forbidden. Like a sheep, like the storage places, like wood, like altar gifts, like the altar, like the Temple, like Jerusalem. If one made a vow by one of the serving pieces of the altar even though he did not mention “sacrifice”, it is as if he made a vow by the sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who says “Jerusalem” did not say anything.

“Not usable” for me but it is for the altar.

“Mushy”. There is no difference whether mushy for an elevation offering or mushy for a well-being offering. The leftover of an elevation offering [never] had a time when it was usable, the leftover of an elevation offering (never) had a time when it was usable. If he said, this is for me as a leftover of a well-being offering, what is it?

“Mushy”. There is no difference whether mushy for an elevation offering or mushy for a well-being offering. The leftover of an elevation offering [never] had a time when it was usable, the leftover of an elevation offering (never) had a time when it was usable. If he said, this is for me as a leftover of a well-being offering, what is it?

A snake when pursuing him fell in a pit. The case came before the rabbis who declared it usable. They said, there was no time to deposit poison.

Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yose said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, where neither itself nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed (and in court) [as the certainty] after he was removed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is not liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to free from liability, not rather to insist on liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him before he was appointed; the certainty after he was appointed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression, he must say that one is liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression, he must say that one is not liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither itself not its blood are usable, it dies immediately.

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed, and (in court) after he was appointed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to insist on liability, not rather to free from liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him after he was appointed; (in court) after he was removed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was not totally atoned, he must say that he is not liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was totally atoned, he must say that one is liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

It is usable to hold them by their stalks when he takes it apart.