verse

Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Ḥelbo Pappos in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Sometimes rains fall because of the merit of one person, the merit of one grass blade, the merit of one field. All three are from one verse, and rain showers He will give to you, to a man, grass, in the field. To a man, but not to men. To a grass, but not to grasses. In the field, but not in fields.

For four causes the rains fall down; because of violent men, because of noxious dew, and that the high country drink like the low country, and that everybody direct his eyes to Heaven. By the merit of three causes does rain fall. By the merit of the Land, by the merit of charity, and by the merit of sufferings; and all are in one verse: If for (charity) [the stick], if for the Land, if for (the stick) [for charity] you will find it.

MISHNAH: Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated, but what can I do since you are misbehaving before the Omnipresent like a son who misbehaves towards his father who does his will. About you the verse says, your father and mother will enjoy and the one who bore you jubilate.

“But what can I do since you are misbehaving before the Omnipresent like a son who misbehaves towards his father who does his will.” Rebbi Berekhia, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jehudah. But some say it in the name of Rav Ḥisda, and some say it in the name of Rav Mattanah. You decide the command and He confirms it for you. Why does the verse say, “for you”? But even if I am saying so and you are saying otherwise, yours is enduring, Mine is not enduring. On your paths shines light; Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, this is rainfall. As heavy as He has loaded the rain-cloud, His light will disperse the cloud. For those humbled you order elevation; if I said to humble them and you say to elevate them, yours is enduring, Mine is not enduring. And the one of low eyes will be saved; I said to bring their eyes down by misfortune but you are saying to save them, yours is enduring, Mine is not enduring. I said, may the not-innocent escape? But you [said], he shall escape even though he is not innocent, yours is enduring, Mine is not enduring. What means, and he will escape by the purity of your hands, by the choice of your hands, by the merit of meritorious deeds and good works which were in your hands from before.

“About you the verse says, your father and mother will enjoy and the one who bore you jubilate.” Why does the verse say, “the one who bore you”? Rebbi Mana said, your nation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, your time. But the rabbis are saying, just as he brings double curse, so he brings double joy. [As it is said:] a silly son is anger to his father and bitterness to the one who bore him. A wise son brings joy to his father but a silly son is sadness to his mother. What means tugah of his mother? Rebbi Ludah said, it is encrypted language, ashes in his mother’s eyes. And from where that he brings double joy to her? Your father and mother will enjoy and the one who bore you jubilate.

“About you the verse says, your father and mother will enjoy and the one who bore you jubilate.” Why does the verse say, “the one who bore you”? Rebbi Mana said, your nation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, your time. But the rabbis are saying, just as he brings double curse, so he brings double joy. [As it is said:] a silly son is anger to his father and bitterness to the one who bore him. A wise son brings joy to his father but a silly son is sadness to his mother. What means tugah of his mother? Rebbi Ludah said, it is encrypted language, ashes in his mother’s eyes. And from where that he brings double joy to her? Your father and mother will enjoy and the one who bore you jubilate.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Why did the verse join the chapter of the nazir to the chapter of lifting the hands? To teach you that just as the nazir is forbidden wine so lifting the hands is forbidden wine. Then since the nazir is forbidden skins and kernels, also lifting the hands has to be forbidden skins and kernels. Rebbi Jonah said, Joshua the son of the Circumciser and Rebbi Ze`ira disagreed. One infers it from the nazir, the other infers it from Temple service. But we do not know who inferred it from the nazir and who inferred it from Temple service. For him who inferred it from the nazir, since the nazir is forbidden skins and kernels, also lifting the hands has to be forbidden skins and kernels. For him who inferred it from Temple service, since the service is forbidden to bodily defective persons, so lifting the hands has to be forbidden to bodily defective persons.

From where the lifting of hands? So you shall bless the Children of Israel. So far during the morning prayers. At musaf? Aaron lifted his hands for the people. Is not this verse distorted? Should it not read: he descended from making the purification sacrifice, and the elevation sacrifice, and the well-being sacrifice, and after this, Aaron lifted his hands for the people? But it teaches that while descending from the altar he lifted his hands and blessed the people. And he blessed them, standing. I could think, not while standing. The verse says, the Eternal, your God, selected them to serve Him and to bless in His Name. It combines blessing with service. Since service is done standing, also blessing is done standing. And so it says, the Levitic Cohanim rose and blessed the people. The verse speaks of the generation of Ezechias, when they toiled in the Torah. But in other generations, when they were serving foreign worship, what does it say? When you spread your hands my eyes shall disregard you. And he blessed them, any blessing. But we did not hear which it was until the verse came and explained it: The Eternal shall bless you and guard you. The Eternal shall enlighten His presence to you and show you favor. The Eternal shall turn His presence to you and give you peace.

From where the lifting of hands? So you shall bless the Children of Israel. So far during the morning prayers. At musaf? Aaron lifted his hands for the people. Is not this verse distorted? Should it not read: he descended from making the purification sacrifice, and the elevation sacrifice, and the well-being sacrifice, and after this, Aaron lifted his hands for the people? But it teaches that while descending from the altar he lifted his hands and blessed the people. And he blessed them, standing. I could think, not while standing. The verse says, the Eternal, your God, selected them to serve Him and to bless in His Name. It combines blessing with service. Since service is done standing, also blessing is done standing. And so it says, the Levitic Cohanim rose and blessed the people. The verse speaks of the generation of Ezechias, when they toiled in the Torah. But in other generations, when they were serving foreign worship, what does it say? When you spread your hands my eyes shall disregard you. And he blessed them, any blessing. But we did not hear which it was until the verse came and explained it: The Eternal shall bless you and guard you. The Eternal shall enlighten His presence to you and show you favor. The Eternal shall turn His presence to you and give you peace.

From where the lifting of hands? So you shall bless the Children of Israel. So far during the morning prayers. At musaf? Aaron lifted his hands for the people. Is not this verse distorted? Should it not read: he descended from making the purification sacrifice, and the elevation sacrifice, and the well-being sacrifice, and after this, Aaron lifted his hands for the people? But it teaches that while descending from the altar he lifted his hands and blessed the people. And he blessed them, standing. I could think, not while standing. The verse says, the Eternal, your God, selected them to serve Him and to bless in His Name. It combines blessing with service. Since service is done standing, also blessing is done standing. And so it says, the Levitic Cohanim rose and blessed the people. The verse speaks of the generation of Ezechias, when they toiled in the Torah. But in other generations, when they were serving foreign worship, what does it say? When you spread your hands my eyes shall disregard you. And he blessed them, any blessing. But we did not hear which it was until the verse came and explained it: The Eternal shall bless you and guard you. The Eternal shall enlighten His presence to you and show you favor. The Eternal shall turn His presence to you and give you peace.

From where the lifting of hands? So you shall bless the Children of Israel. So far during the morning prayers. At musaf? Aaron lifted his hands for the people. Is not this verse distorted? Should it not read: he descended from making the purification sacrifice, and the elevation sacrifice, and the well-being sacrifice, and after this, Aaron lifted his hands for the people? But it teaches that while descending from the altar he lifted his hands and blessed the people. And he blessed them, standing. I could think, not while standing. The verse says, the Eternal, your God, selected them to serve Him and to bless in His Name. It combines blessing with service. Since service is done standing, also blessing is done standing. And so it says, the Levitic Cohanim rose and blessed the people. The verse speaks of the generation of Ezechias, when they toiled in the Torah. But in other generations, when they were serving foreign worship, what does it say? When you spread your hands my eyes shall disregard you. And he blessed them, any blessing. But we did not hear which it was until the verse came and explained it: The Eternal shall bless you and guard you. The Eternal shall enlighten His presence to you and show you favor. The Eternal shall turn His presence to you and give you peace.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The world only continues to exist by the sacrifices. There, we stated: “Simeon the Just was of the remainders of the Great Assembly. He used to say, the world continues to exist by three things, by the Torah, by worship, and by labors of love” All three are in one verse: I shall put My word in your mouth, that is Torah. By the shadow of My hands I shall cover you, these are labors of love; to teach you that he who is occupied with Torah and labors of love merits to dwell in the shadow of the Holy One, praise to Him. That is what is written, how precious is Your grace, o God, and humans take shelter in Your wings’ shadow. To plant the Heavens and give foundation to the earth, these are the sacrifices, and to say to Zion, you are My people, these are Israel. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, we went over all of Scripture and only found this one that Israel was called Zion, and to say to Zion, you are My people. There, we stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the world is existing on three things, on justice, on truth, and on peace. All three are one: If justice is done, truth is accomplished. If truth is accomplished, peace is established. Rebbi Mana said, and all are in one verse, judge truth and law of peace in your gates.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The world only continues to exist by the sacrifices. There, we stated: “Simeon the Just was of the remainders of the Great Assembly. He used to say, the world continues to exist by three things, by the Torah, by worship, and by labors of love” All three are in one verse: I shall put My word in your mouth, that is Torah. By the shadow of My hands I shall cover you, these are labors of love; to teach you that he who is occupied with Torah and labors of love merits to dwell in the shadow of the Holy One, praise to Him. That is what is written, how precious is Your grace, o God, and humans take shelter in Your wings’ shadow. To plant the Heavens and give foundation to the earth, these are the sacrifices, and to say to Zion, you are My people, these are Israel. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, we went over all of Scripture and only found this one that Israel was called Zion, and to say to Zion, you are My people. There, we stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the world is existing on three things, on justice, on truth, and on peace. All three are one: If justice is done, truth is accomplished. If truth is accomplished, peace is established. Rebbi Mana said, and all are in one verse, judge truth and law of peace in your gates.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments. But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Perita objected before Rebbi Ze`ira, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day. Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked before Rebbi Jonah; was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses?

The verse supports Rebbi Joḥanan: It was in the morning of the second New Month. If you would say, there were two months, is it not written: why did Jesse’s son come neither yesterday not today to the meal? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan commanded those of the Kufra synagogue, make sure that you come home when it is still daytime and you should mention its time and its addition.

HALAKHAH: It is written: The glory of the Eternal dwelt on Mount Sinai; the cloud covered it for six days; He called to Moses on the Seventh Day. Moses ascended. The Seventh after the Ten Commandments, the start of the Forty. Moses said to them, I shall be occupied on the Mountain for 40 days. When the fortieth day came and he did not come, immediately the people saw that Moses tarried in descending from the Mountain. When noontime came and he did not come, immediately the people congregated on Aaron and said to him, rise and make us gods which shall go before us, etc. The Eternal said to Moses, descend, for your people corrupted, etc. And Joshua heard the sound of the people in its dealings; he said to Moses, there is sound of war in the camp. Moses said, a man who in the future will rule over 600’000 does not know to distinguish between sound and sound? He said, there is no sound of shouts of strength nor sound of sounds of weakness, a sound of shouts I am hearing. Rebbi Yasa said, a sound of acclaim of foreign worship I am hearing. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Yasa: There is no generation in which there is not an ounce of the sin of the Calf. It was when he approached the camp that he saw the Calf and fifes. Rebbi Ḥilkiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: From here that a person should not argue from guesses. Moses made an argument de minore ad majus. Since for the pesaḥ sacrifice, which is an isolated obligation, it is said no uncircumcised may eat from it, the Torah in which all commandments are contained not so much more? Moses got angry and he threw the tablets from his hand and broke them below the Mountain. Rebbi Ismael stated, the Holy One, praise to Him, told him to break them, [as it is said,] I shall write on the tablets the words which were on the first tablets luckily you broke. He said to him, you did well that you broke. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: The tablets were six hand-breadths long and three wide. Moses held two hand-breadth, the Holy One, praise to Him two hand-breadth, and two hand-breadths of space were between them. When Israel sinned in that way, the Holy One wanted to seize them from Moses’s hand, but Moses’s hand had the better of it and seized them from Him. That is what the verse praises him at the end and says, and all the strong hand, peace shall be on the hand which had the better on mine. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Abbai: the tablets wanted to fly off but Moses held them, [as is written,] I grabbed the two tablets. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nehemiah, the writing itself flew off. Rebbi Ezra in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Simon: The tablets were a load of forty seah but the writing was carrying them. When the writing flew off they were too heavy for Moses’s hands, they fell, and broke.

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

HALAKHAH: “The scroll is read,” etc. Rebbi Ila, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To confirm these Purim days in their times. Why does the verse say, in their times? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jonah says, to give them other times. Rebbi Yose says, times which the Sages fixed for them. And those are these: the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, the Fifteenth. Or maybe only the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. Maybe it is only the Ninth and the Tenth? Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It is not written “days” but like the days, pair days with days, the Eleventh and Twelfth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth. Or the Twelfth and Thirteenth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth? Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war. It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. Then one should not read on this day. One reads before and after, on the day one should not read? Or only the Ninth and the Tenth? Like the days, days close to the days. But if days close to the days, {maybe} only Sixteenth and Seventeenth? You cannot, for Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate. [Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass.]

All the towns which Joshua enumerated are at least one hundred. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he enumerated those walled. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, he enumerated those close to the border. The verse supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: their border was Meḥelef [etc. And Qaḥtat, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Yedeala, and Bet Leḥem.] Meḥelef, Ḥelef. Me’elon, Aylin. Baṣa`ananim, Basin of Qedesh. And Adami, Damin. Hanneqeb, Ṣaidata. And Yabneel, Kefar Yama. Up to Laqqum, Loqim. And Qaṭtat, Qeṭonit. And Nahallal, Mahlul. And Shimron, Simonieh. And Yedeala, Ḥirieh. And Bet Leḥem, Bet Leḥem Sarieh.

“And the festive offering.” One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day are forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working.”

“And the festive offering.” One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day are forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it was intercalated and afterwards they read it; but if they read it and after that it was intercalated it does not apply. The Mishnah does not say so, but “if the Scroll was read during the first Adar and then the year was intercalated one has to read it during the second Adar.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: it is written, to validate this Purim letter; why does the verse say, the second? But from here that If the Scroll was read during the first Adar and then the year was intercalated one has to read it during the second Adar.

If it spread while in quarantine, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “From the sufferer from skin disease; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds, (should not) [is it not logical that] one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure, one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity] depends on the count of his days. So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day. One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day.

Rav Shesha the son of Rav Ḥananel said, one has to write ה below the knee joint of the ל, so you want to repay to the Eternal? In this way you want to repay to the Eternal? The Mezuzah. There are Tannaim who state, open; there are Tannaim who state, closed. Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: Practice follows him who said open, since that is not its place. Open at the start is closed. Open at the bottom is open. Open on both sides is closed. If in error he omitted one verse, if it is two or three lines one repairs and reads from it; four one does not read from it. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel, the same holds for a tear. It was stated, a scroll in which there are [two or three errors on every page one fixes and reads from it. Four one does not read from it. But was it not stated, a scroll in which there are] 85 errors, as the paragraph it was when the Ark travelled, one repairs and reads from it? Rebbi Shammai said, here in a large scroll, there in a small scroll. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel, if he found in it one page which is whole, it saves everything. How? Whole in that there are (no) [not three] errors? Or whole that there are no four? Ḥagra the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Bina gave a Torah scroll to Rav Ḥananel who checked it. He said to him, this your Torah scroll needs prayer. At the end he found in it a page which was whole, which saved everything. How? Whole in that there are no errors? Or whole that there are no four?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] this refers to the king. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king, I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

I could think that the one anointed for war should bring his tenth of an ephah. [The verse says, in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will serve in his stead brings his tenth of an ephah.] This excludes the one anointed for war whose sons will not serve in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where that the son of the anointed for war will not serve in his stead? The verse says, seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. This excludes the one anointed for war who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, [his son will not stand in his stead.] From where that he can be appointed as High Priest? [As is written,] Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them; in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, he said to him, “before, he was with him.” Before, he was with him. In the days of Zimri, he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea, he did not protest.

I could think that the one anointed for war should bring his tenth of an ephah. [The verse says, in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will serve in his stead brings his tenth of an ephah.] This excludes the one anointed for war whose sons will not serve in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where that the son of the anointed for war will not serve in his stead? The verse says, seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. This excludes the one anointed for war who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, [his son will not stand in his stead.] From where that he can be appointed as High Priest? [As is written,] Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them; in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, he said to him, “before, he was with him.” Before, he was with him. In the days of Zimri, he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea, he did not protest.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: But the Sages are saying that he is qualified neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he does not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest, sometimes he officiates in four, sometimes he officiates in eight. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is stated: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who saw the act and forgot. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: But the Sages are saying that he is qualified neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he does not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest, sometimes he officiates in four, sometimes he officiates in eight. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is stated: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets, blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who saw the act and forgot. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court.”

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court.”

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court.”

HALAKHAH: [“The only difference between a public altar and a private altar, etc.”] Rebbi Joḥanan spent three years that he did not visit the house of assembly because of pain. At the end Rebbi Eleazar saw in his dream: Tomorrow Sinai will come down and bring a new insight. He came and said before them, from where is this truth verified that divine service is by firstborns? From this verse, for Mine is every firstborn; on the day when I smote every firstborn in the Land of Egypt, etc. And it is written, and on all gods of Egypt I shall pass judgment, etc. Before that what were they doing? Rebecca took the desirable garments of her older son Esaw, which were with her in the house. What are “the desirable”? That he was acting as High Priest. Rebbi Levi said, the Eternal broke the staff of the evildoers, these are the firstborn who were the first to sacrifice to the Calf.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sons of Noah brought well-being offerings. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the Sons of Noah brought elevation offerings. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, and Abel also brought from the firstlings of his sheep and of their excellence. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? From their luxurious ones. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, he sent the young men of Israel and they offered elevation offerings, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Entire in their bodies, without stripping and partitioning. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: [Is it not written, Jethro, Moses’s in-law, took elevation and well-being offerings for God?] What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Following him who said that Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Jehudah the great one and Rebbi Yannai disagreed. One said, Jethro came before the giving of the Torah; but the other one said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. We did not know who said what. Let us hear from the following: Jethro, the priest of Midyan, Moses’s in-law, heard. What did he hear? Ḥizqiah said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. Rebbi Joshua said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. [Rebbi Levi said, he heard the war of Amaleq.] The Great Jehudah said, he heard the giving of the Torah. Therefore he must be the one who said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the following supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Awake North, and come South. Awake North refers to the elevation sacrifice which is slaughtered in the North. What means “awake”? What was sleeping and awoke. And come South refers to well-being sacrifices which are slaughtered in the South. What means “come”? Something new. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? When the diasporas in the North awake and build the Temple in the South. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: also the following verse supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is the teaching about the elevation sacrifice. This is the elevation sacrifice which the Sons of Noah were sacrificing. When he comes to well-being sacrifice he says, this is the teaching about the well-being sacrifice. It is not written “which one brought” but shall bring from now on..

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it.” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted. What is between them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the bull of hidden things is between them. Rebbi Yose says, voluntary offerings of the community are between them. It was stated, both men and women. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no woman here, “man” is written in the paragraph. It was stated, also a nazir’s sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are no nazir’s sacrifices here; nazir’s sacrifices are an obligation. It was stated, also libations. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who states “libations” does not hold with Rebbi, as it was stated, Rebbi says, I am saying that also after Israel entered the Land, libations only are brought inside. What is the reason? In the Sanctuary pour alcoholic libations to the Eternal. A prohibition is written only for inside; from where for the outside? Let us hear from the following. From where that one who slaughters as Pesah for an individual on a private altar or the public altar in a time where altars are forbidden, that he transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, you may not slaughter the Pesaḥ at one. He is punished with extirpation and you are saying so? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is about one who slaughters in the afternoon not for its name in a time when altars are permitted. Then why does he say, in a time when altars are forbidden? In a time when his altar is forbidden. Why not for its name? That you should not say, it is well-being offering and qualified. In addition, from the following: I could think that if he slaughtered it in the afternoon it should be qualified. Why do you have (in the afternoon it should be qualified) [in the morning it should be disqualified]? No. It is not for its name. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that well-being sacrifices brought because of Pesaḥ are qualified on an altar. Would an elevation offering be brought because of a reparation sacrifice be qualified on an altar according to Rebbi Eleazar? Let us hear from the following: “This is the principle: Anything which can be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar; but nothing which cannot be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar.”

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ila`y. One verse says, he abandoned the dwelling at Shilo, but an other verse says, she brought him to the Eternal’s House at Shilo. How is this? A stone house below and the gobelins on top, and this was “rest.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, a minimum of ten hand-breadths, as in building a house. But was it not stated, just as the Tent of Meeting was erected so was the Tent at Shilo erected? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, its poles, its planks, its latches, its bases, and its columns. Its poles were visible inside like stars in the sky.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ila`y. One verse says, he abandoned the dwelling at Shilo, but an other verse says, she brought him to the Eternal’s House at Shilo. How is this? A stone house below and the gobelins on top, and this was “rest.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, a minimum of ten hand-breadths, as in building a house. But was it not stated, just as the Tent of Meeting was erected so was the Tent at Shilo erected? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, its poles, its planks, its latches, its bases, and its columns. Its poles were visible inside like stars in the sky.

From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot; this adds. Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot, mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but may Second Tithe be eaten at any dwelling place? It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.

From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot; this adds. Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot, mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but may Second Tithe be eaten at any dwelling place? It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir. The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. This excludes thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir which may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and (goats) [wafers] of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Ezrah asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a private altar. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if it was written in Greek. Where do we hold? If it was written in square script and he translated it into Greek, that is what we have stated “in any language.” If it was written in Greek and he translated it into {the language of} square script, that is what was stated, which is the difference between Torah scrolls and the Esther scroll? Only that Torah scrolls may be written in any language but the Esther scroll may only be written in square script. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if it was written gignton. Samuel stated: If in error he omitted one verse but the translator translated it, he fulfilled his obligation. We are saying “in any language,” and you are saying so? Samuel follows his opinion [since] Samuel said, if it was written according to its rules the Greek speaker fulfills his obligation in Greek. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he knows the language of square script and he knows Greek, he fulfills his obligation [in Greek or] in the language of square script. Greek, he fulfills his obligation in Greek. If he knows the language of square script and he knows Greek, may he absolve the public from their obligation in Greek? This shall come following: anybody who is not obligated in a matter cannot not absolve the public of their obligation.

“If he wrote it,” this implies that work is permitted. Should we say on the Fourteenth, in walled cities? “Studied it,” only he should not let his mind wander to other topics. “He corrected it.” It was stated: one is not explicit about its mistakes. Rebbi Isaac bar Abba from Mehasia and Rebbi Ḥananel were sitting before Rav. One said, Yehudim. And the other one said, Yehudiim, and neither of them changed his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan was reading always “Yehudim”. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: One verse says “book”, another verse says “letter.” How is this? They made it light for sewing. They were lenient regarding its sewing, that if he stitched two or three stitches it is qualified.

“If he wrote it,” this implies that work is permitted. Should we say on the Fourteenth, in walled cities? “Studied it,” only he should not let his mind wander to other topics. “He corrected it.” It was stated: one is not explicit about its mistakes. Rebbi Isaac bar Abba from Mehasia and Rebbi Ḥananel were sitting before Rav. One said, Yehudim. And the other one said, Yehudiim, and neither of them changed his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan was reading always “Yehudim”. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: One verse says “book”, another verse says “letter.” How is this? They made it light for sewing. They were lenient regarding its sewing, that if he stitched two or three stitches it is qualified.

May one write two or three words from a verse? Mar Uqba sent a letter to the Head of the Diaspora who went to sleep and got up with song: Israel, do not enjoy like the Gentiles. Rebbi Aḥa wrote, the remembrance of the just is a blessing. Rebbi Ze`ura wrote, Joash the King did not remember. Rebbi Jeremiah sent a letter to Rebbi Jehudah Nesia, to hate your lovers, to love your hater. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi judged Tamar. She went and complained about them to the prefect of Sepphoris. They sent and wrote to Rebbi Abbahu, who wrote back to them, (twice) [already] we pacified the three informers, the well born, the well learned, and Tarshish, Eutokos, Eumathes, Thalassios; but the rebellious Tamar remains in her rebellious state; we tried to soften her but in vain did one smelt to refine. Rebbi Mana sent a letter to Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, your beginnings were small, your future may be much expanding.

There, we stated: “Simeon the Just was of the remainders of the Great Assembly. He used to say, the world continues to exist by three things, by the Torah, by worship, and by labors of love” All three are in one verse: I shall put My word in your mouth, that is Torah. By the shadow of My hands I shall cover you, these are labors of love; to teach you that he who is occupied with Torah and labors of love merits to dwell in the shadow of the Holy One, praise to Him. That is what is written, how precious is Your grace, o God, and humans take shelter in Your wings’ shadow. To plant the Heavens and give foundation to the earth, these are the sacrifices, and to say to Zion, you are My people. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, we went over all of Scripture and only found this one that Israel was called Zion, and to say to Zion, you are My people. There, we stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the world is existing on three things, on justice, on truth, and on peace. All three are one: If justice is done, truth is accomplished. If truth is accomplished, peace is established. Rebbi Mana said, and all are in one verse, judge truth and law of peace in your gates.

There, we stated: “Simeon the Just was of the remainders of the Great Assembly. He used to say, the world continues to exist by three things, by the Torah, by worship, and by labors of love” All three are in one verse: I shall put My word in your mouth, that is Torah. By the shadow of My hands I shall cover you, these are labors of love; to teach you that he who is occupied with Torah and labors of love merits to dwell in the shadow of the Holy One, praise to Him. That is what is written, how precious is Your grace, o God, and humans take shelter in Your wings’ shadow. To plant the Heavens and give foundation to the earth, these are the sacrifices, and to say to Zion, you are My people. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said, we went over all of Scripture and only found this one that Israel was called Zion, and to say to Zion, you are My people. There, we stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the world is existing on three things, on justice, on truth, and on peace. All three are one: If justice is done, truth is accomplished. If truth is accomplished, peace is established. Rebbi Mana said, and all are in one verse, judge truth and law of peace in your gates.

Rebbi Ḥiyya the son of Rebbi Ada from Jaffa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: One has to recite them in one breath together with “the ten sons of Haman.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one has to write ish at the top of the column and the at the end since so it (rises) [is compressed] and sinks like a plumb-line. Rav said, one has to say, Haman be cursed, his sons be cursed. Rebbi Phineas said, one has to say, Ḥarbona be remembered for good. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When Rebbi Jonathan came to this verse, whom Nebuchadnezzar exiled, he used to say, Nebuchadnezzar, may his bones be pulverized; for all “Nebuchadnezzar” written in Jeremiah refer to the living, but here he was dead.

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, three people reading in the Torah shall not do less than ten verses. Ḥizqiah said, corresponding to the Ten Commandments [But did we not state, “on Sunday, In the Beginning and there shall be a spread”? And these are only eight! Rebbi Idi said, Cahana and Assi disagreed. One said, he repeats. But the other said, he splits. He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he splits it was evening, it was morning, as a separate verse. But did we not state, “on Monday, there shall be a spread and the waters shall come together”? He who says that he repeats, he repeats two verses. He who says he splits, he could not split. Rebbi Philippos ben Protos objected before Rebbi Jonah, is there not the paragraph about Amalek? He said to him, there is a difference since this is the topic of the day.] Rebbi Eleazar from Merom asked, was it not stated, the one who reads the conclusion from Prophets should not do less than 21 verses. Should there not be 23? Three for ten, three for ten, and one three.

MISHNAH: One who reads in the Torah may not read less than three verses. He should not read for the translator more than one verse, but in Prophets three. If all three were three paragraphs he reads them singly. One skips in Prophets but one does not skip in the Torah. How far may he skip? As long as the translator did not stop.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated, “A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled.” And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Jehudah says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Meïr says, excluding the blind person. And here we have stated, “a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`.” Therefore if he saw he spreads. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, is the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not spread the Shema`.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The hermaphrodite.” All your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite. There, we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains male. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite.

“The hermaphrodite.” All your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite. There, we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains male. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite.

“The hermaphrodite.” All your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite. There, we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male. Rebbi Jehudah explains male. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai are saying, one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to ride on his father’s shoulder. But even a {very} small one can ride on his father’s shoulder; must he fulfill his obligation? But one who sees his father’s shoulder and runs to him. The House of Hillel explain: one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to grab his father’s hand. But in matters of purity you are saying, if he grabs his father’s hand, in matters of doubt he is treated as intelligent being. If his father grabs his hand, [in case of doubt] he is treated as deaf-and-dumb. But here in both cases he is liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai are saying, one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to ride on his father’s shoulder. But even a {very} small one can ride on his father’s shoulder; must he fulfill his obligation? But one who sees his father’s shoulder and runs to him. The House of Hillel explain: one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to grab his father’s hand. But in matters of purity you are saying, if he grabs his father’s hand, in matters of doubt he is treated as intelligent being. If his father grabs his hand, [in case of doubt] he is treated as deaf-and-dumb. But here in both cases he is liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai are saying, one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to ride on his father’s shoulder. But even a {very} small one can ride on his father’s shoulder; must he fulfill his obligation? But one who sees his father’s shoulder and runs to him. The House of Hillel explain: one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to grab his father’s hand. But in matters of purity you are saying, if he grabs his father’s hand, in matters of doubt he is treated as intelligent being. If his father grabs his hand, [in case of doubt] he is treated as deaf-and-dumb. But here in both cases he is liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai are saying, one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to ride on his father’s shoulder. But even a {very} small one can ride on his father’s shoulder; must he fulfill his obligation? But one who sees his father’s shoulder and runs to him. The House of Hillel explain: one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to grab his father’s hand. But in matters of purity you are saying, if he grabs his father’s hand, in matters of doubt he is treated as intelligent being. If his father grabs his hand, [in case of doubt] he is treated as deaf-and-dumb. But here in both cases he is liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai are saying, one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to ride on his father’s shoulder. But even a {very} small one can ride on his father’s shoulder; must he fulfill his obligation? But one who sees his father’s shoulder and runs to him. The House of Hillel explain: one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to grab his father’s hand. But in matters of purity you are saying, if he grabs his father’s hand, in matters of doubt he is treated as intelligent being. If his father grabs his hand, [in case of doubt] he is treated as deaf-and-dumb. But here in both cases he is liable.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first, also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania, Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: I wrote down for him most of My teaching. But was most of the Torah written down? Rather, more things are derived from what is written than what is derived from oral tradition. Is that so? But things derived from what is supported by a verse are preferred over those supported by oral tradition. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said: I wrote down for him most of My teaching, these are the admonitions. Nevertheless, is it not that they were considered foreign? Rebbi Abun said: If I had written down for you most of my teaching, would it not be considered Gentile? What would be the difference between us and the Gentiles? These produce their books and those produce their books. These produce their parchments and those produce their parchments.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah: Three lectured their teachings in front of their teachers: Rebbi Joshua in front of Rabban Joḥana ben Zakkai, Rebbi Aqiba in front of Rebbi Joshua, Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai in front of Rebbi Aqiba. From there on their mind was not pure. Four entered the Garden, One peeked and was hurt; one peeked and died; one peeked and cut saplings, one entered in peace and left in peace. Ben Azzai peeked and was hurt; about him the verse says, if you found honey, eat your fill. Ben Zoma peeked and died, about him the verse says, dear in the Eternal’s eyes is the death of his pious. Aḥer peeked and cut saplings. Who is Aḥer? Elisha ben Abuya, who killed the children of Torah. They said, if he saw a student excelling in Torah he killed him. Not only this, but he went to the school house and saw children in front of their Bible teacher. He said, what are these sitting doing here? The profession of this one is builder, the profession of this one is carpenter, the profession of this one is hunter, the profession of this one is tailor. When they heard this, they left him and went away. About him the verse says, do not let your mouth make your flesh sin, etc.; for he destroyed the deeds of himself. Also in the time of religious persecution they made them carry loads. They intended that two together should carry one load, because of two persons who performed one work. He said, make them carry singly. They went and made them carry singly. They intended to unload in karmelit, in order not to carry from a private to a public domain. He said to them, let them carry flasks; they made them carry flasks. Rebbi Aqiba entered in peace and left in peace; about him the verse says, draw me, I shall run after you, etc.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah: Three lectured their teachings in front of their teachers: Rebbi Joshua in front of Rabban Joḥana ben Zakkai, Rebbi Aqiba in front of Rebbi Joshua, Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai in front of Rebbi Aqiba. From there on their mind was not pure. Four entered the Garden, One peeked and was hurt; one peeked and died; one peeked and cut saplings, one entered in peace and left in peace. Ben Azzai peeked and was hurt; about him the verse says, if you found honey, eat your fill. Ben Zoma peeked and died, about him the verse says, dear in the Eternal’s eyes is the death of his pious. Aḥer peeked and cut saplings. Who is Aḥer? Elisha ben Abuya, who killed the children of Torah. They said, if he saw a student excelling in Torah he killed him. Not only this, but he went to the school house and saw children in front of their Bible teacher. He said, what are these sitting doing here? The profession of this one is builder, the profession of this one is carpenter, the profession of this one is hunter, the profession of this one is tailor. When they heard this, they left him and went away. About him the verse says, do not let your mouth make your flesh sin, etc.; for he destroyed the deeds of himself. Also in the time of religious persecution they made them carry loads. They intended that two together should carry one load, because of two persons who performed one work. He said, make them carry singly. They went and made them carry singly. They intended to unload in karmelit, in order not to carry from a private to a public domain. He said to them, let them carry flasks; they made them carry flasks. Rebbi Aqiba entered in peace and left in peace; about him the verse says, draw me, I shall run after you, etc.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah: Three lectured their teachings in front of their teachers: Rebbi Joshua in front of Rabban Joḥana ben Zakkai, Rebbi Aqiba in front of Rebbi Joshua, Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai in front of Rebbi Aqiba. From there on their mind was not pure. Four entered the Garden, One peeked and was hurt; one peeked and died; one peeked and cut saplings, one entered in peace and left in peace. Ben Azzai peeked and was hurt; about him the verse says, if you found honey, eat your fill. Ben Zoma peeked and died, about him the verse says, dear in the Eternal’s eyes is the death of his pious. Aḥer peeked and cut saplings. Who is Aḥer? Elisha ben Abuya, who killed the children of Torah. They said, if he saw a student excelling in Torah he killed him. Not only this, but he went to the school house and saw children in front of their Bible teacher. He said, what are these sitting doing here? The profession of this one is builder, the profession of this one is carpenter, the profession of this one is hunter, the profession of this one is tailor. When they heard this, they left him and went away. About him the verse says, do not let your mouth make your flesh sin, etc.; for he destroyed the deeds of himself. Also in the time of religious persecution they made them carry loads. They intended that two together should carry one load, because of two persons who performed one work. He said, make them carry singly. They went and made them carry singly. They intended to unload in karmelit, in order not to carry from a private to a public domain. He said to them, let them carry flasks; they made them carry flasks. Rebbi Aqiba entered in peace and left in peace; about him the verse says, draw me, I shall run after you, etc.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah: Three lectured their teachings in front of their teachers: Rebbi Joshua in front of Rabban Joḥana ben Zakkai, Rebbi Aqiba in front of Rebbi Joshua, Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai in front of Rebbi Aqiba. From there on their mind was not pure. Four entered the Garden, One peeked and was hurt; one peeked and died; one peeked and cut saplings, one entered in peace and left in peace. Ben Azzai peeked and was hurt; about him the verse says, if you found honey, eat your fill. Ben Zoma peeked and died, about him the verse says, dear in the Eternal’s eyes is the death of his pious. Aḥer peeked and cut saplings. Who is Aḥer? Elisha ben Abuya, who killed the children of Torah. They said, if he saw a student excelling in Torah he killed him. Not only this, but he went to the school house and saw children in front of their Bible teacher. He said, what are these sitting doing here? The profession of this one is builder, the profession of this one is carpenter, the profession of this one is hunter, the profession of this one is tailor. When they heard this, they left him and went away. About him the verse says, do not let your mouth make your flesh sin, etc.; for he destroyed the deeds of himself. Also in the time of religious persecution they made them carry loads. They intended that two together should carry one load, because of two persons who performed one work. He said, make them carry singly. They went and made them carry singly. They intended to unload in karmelit, in order not to carry from a private to a public domain. He said to them, let them carry flasks; they made them carry flasks. Rebbi Aqiba entered in peace and left in peace; about him the verse says, draw me, I shall run after you, etc.

Rebbi Jonah [in the name of] Rebbi Abba: It is written, but ask the first days which were before you, I could think before the Creation. The verse says, from the day that God created Man on the Earth. I could think starting with the Sixth Day, the verse says, the first. After the verse added, it subtracted. Therefore we infer from the Sixth. Since the Sixth is particular that it is one of the Six Days of Creation, also you may not bring to me only ones similar to the Sixth. I could think, to know what is higher than heaven and lower than the abyss, the verse says, from end of heaven to end of heaven. But before the world was created you may investigate privately; after the world was created your voice may go from one end of the world to the other end. Bar Qappara stated, “and from the day.” It comes that Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi parallels Bar Qappara, and what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated parallels Rebbi Abba.

Rebbi Jonah [in the name of] Rebbi Abba: It is written, but ask the first days which were before you, I could think before the Creation. The verse says, from the day that God created Man on the Earth. I could think starting with the Sixth Day, the verse says, the first. After the verse added, it subtracted. Therefore we infer from the Sixth. Since the Sixth is particular that it is one of the Six Days of Creation, also you may not bring to me only ones similar to the Sixth. I could think, to know what is higher than heaven and lower than the abyss, the verse says, from end of heaven to end of heaven. But before the world was created you may investigate privately; after the world was created your voice may go from one end of the world to the other end. Bar Qappara stated, “and from the day.” It comes that Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi parallels Bar Qappara, and what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated parallels Rebbi Abba.

Rebbi Jonah [in the name of] Rebbi Abba: It is written, but ask the first days which were before you, I could think before the Creation. The verse says, from the day that God created Man on the Earth. I could think starting with the Sixth Day, the verse says, the first. After the verse added, it subtracted. Therefore we infer from the Sixth. Since the Sixth is particular that it is one of the Six Days of Creation, also you may not bring to me only ones similar to the Sixth. I could think, to know what is higher than heaven and lower than the abyss, the verse says, from end of heaven to end of heaven. But before the world was created you may investigate privately; after the world was created your voice may go from one end of the world to the other end. Bar Qappara stated, “and from the day.” It comes that Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi parallels Bar Qappara, and what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated parallels Rebbi Abba.

Rebbi Jonah [in the name of] Rebbi Abba: It is written, but ask the first days which were before you, I could think before the Creation. The verse says, from the day that God created Man on the Earth. I could think starting with the Sixth Day, the verse says, the first. After the verse added, it subtracted. Therefore we infer from the Sixth. Since the Sixth is particular that it is one of the Six Days of Creation, also you may not bring to me only ones similar to the Sixth. I could think, to know what is higher than heaven and lower than the abyss, the verse says, from end of heaven to end of heaven. But before the world was created you may investigate privately; after the world was created your voice may go from one end of the world to the other end. Bar Qappara stated, “and from the day.” It comes that Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi parallels Bar Qappara, and what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated parallels Rebbi Abba.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was passing by the school when he heard them reciting the verse, they sacrificed animal sacrifices and brought elevation sacrifices the next day. He said, he who interrupts follows the House of Shammai; he who reads it as one sentence follows the House of Hillel. One understands elevation sacrifices the next day; but well-being sacrifices the next day? Are not well-being sacrifices brought following the House of Shammai? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, David died on Pentecost; all of Israel were deep mourners and they brought the next day.

One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasts, and working.”

One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasts, and working.”

“And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, not that they introduced new impurities for the Red Cow but they said, he who becomes impure in an easy impurity is like one who became impure in severe impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: And it shall be collected by a man, why does the verse say, pure? Think of it. Even if you collect it by a shovel, the Torah requires pure. Where do we hold? If a metal shovel, but also flat metal implements are subject to impurity. If a wooden shovel, is it not held together because of something subject to impurity? Rav Hoshaia said, explain it if he collects it with a plank. Then it is impossible that he should not carry it. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, explain it if he collects it with a coarse cross-beam. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: what is the difference between a person pure for the Red Cow and an empty vessel pure for the Red Cow? He answered him, And it shall be collected by a pure, why does the the verse say, man? Only to prescribe extraordinary purity to the man to handle the water for ashes of the Red Cow and the ashes of the Red Cow. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The moving which I declared pure for you for crawling animals I declared impure for you here.

“And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, not that they introduced new impurities for the Red Cow but they said, he who becomes impure in an easy impurity is like one who became impure in severe impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: And it shall be collected by a man, why does the verse say, pure? Think of it. Even if you collect it by a shovel, the Torah requires pure. Where do we hold? If a metal shovel, but also flat metal implements are subject to impurity. If a wooden shovel, is it not held together because of something subject to impurity? Rav Hoshaia said, explain it if he collects it with a plank. Then it is impossible that he should not carry it. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, explain it if he collects it with a coarse cross-beam. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: what is the difference between a person pure for the Red Cow and an empty vessel pure for the Red Cow? He answered him, And it shall be collected by a pure, why does the the verse say, man? Only to prescribe extraordinary purity to the man to handle the water for ashes of the Red Cow and the ashes of the Red Cow. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The moving which I declared pure for you for crawling animals I declared impure for you here.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It happened that seven Elders assembled in the valley of Rimmon. Who were they? Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Neḥemiah, and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. They said, how many distinctions have sancta compared to heave? Rebbi Meïr says, thirteen. Rebbi Yose says, twelve. Rebbi Meïr said, so I heard from Rebbi Aqiba, thirteen. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, I served Rebbi Aqiba standing more than you served sitting. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian is a true Alexandrian. They rose kissing, and if any of them had no kaftan, his colleague cut half of his kaftan and gave it to him. And why did they do this? Because all of them were explaining the following verse, each one in seven ways: I shall sing to my beloved, my beloved’s song for his vineyard. They acclaimed the last one for the versions he found in it. They said, this was Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai. Why were they exerting themselves in this matter? They were explaining, saying, molten gods you shall not make for yourself. What is written next? The holiday of unleavened bread you shall observe. They said, anybody able to intercalate a year and he does not intercalate is as if he worshipped strange gods. When they were leaving they said, come and let us record our act. A rock of marble was there. Each of them took a nail and fixed it in it; it descended and sank in as in dough. Until now it is called the rock of nails.

“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disqualified for heave but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disqualified for heave but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disqualified for heave but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

Because of burning Torah from where? It was when Yehudi read three or four stanzas. What means “three or four stanzas”? Three or four verses. When he came to the fifth verse, for the Eternal afflicted her for the magnitude of her sins, immediately he cut it off with a scribe’s knife and threw it, etc. But they showed no fear nor tore their garments.

HALAKHAH: “Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives”, etc. It is written “unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted and then forbidden, when it became permitted again should one think it returned to its prior permission? The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted and then forbidden, when she became permitted again should one think she returned to her prior permission? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

HALAKHAH: “Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives”, etc. It is written “unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted and then forbidden, when it became permitted again should one think it returned to its prior permission? The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted and then forbidden, when she became permitted again should one think she returned to her prior permission? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

Rebbi Yose explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat. When he dedicated it became forbidden. When the fistful was brought it became permitted again; should one think it returned to its prior permission? If he wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat? The verse states “unleavened it must be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

Rebbi Yose explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat. When he dedicated it became forbidden. When the fistful was brought it became permitted again; should one think it returned to its prior permission? If he wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat? The verse states “unleavened it must be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

Rebbi Huna explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it leavened, he eats it, unleavened, he eats it. The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her brother-in-law shall come upon her” as commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

Rebbi Huna explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it leavened, he eats it, unleavened, he eats it. The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her brother-in-law shall come upon her” as commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

It is written: “For anyone who is acting out any of these abominations will be extirpated”. Was not the brother’s wife in the set of all incest prohibitions and was removed from this set by the levirate? Could one say that all other incest prohibitions were removed from this set by levirate? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her”, “upon her”: “her levir shall come upon her.” Since with respect to “upon her” which was said there, the verse speaks about paternal brothers, so with respect to “upon her” which was said here, the verse speaks about paternal brothers.

It is written: “For anyone who is acting out any of these abominations will be extirpated”. Was not the brother’s wife in the set of all incest prohibitions and was removed from this set by the levirate? Could one say that all other incest prohibitions were removed from this set by levirate? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her”, “upon her”: “her levir shall come upon her.” Since with respect to “upon her” which was said there, the verse speaks about paternal brothers, so with respect to “upon her” which was said here, the verse speaks about paternal brothers.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here, does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here is even about a brother’s widow.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here, does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here is even about a brother’s widow.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here, does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here is even about a brother’s widow.