volume

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If one harvested half the volume of a dried fig on this Sabbath, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig on another Sabbath, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Is it possible to say Sabbaths divide, Sabbaths combine? Do not trays divide and trays combine? He answered, I do not know the reason for the tray. Is this not a baraita? If he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Azariah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it by intent. He said to him, is this not an argument a fortiori? Since intent neither divides nor combines, error which does not divide a fortiori does not combine.

Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is not what he said but he harvested half the volume of a dried fig in the morning, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig in the evening, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not address this, he said something similar. If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and half the volume of an olive being oblivious of the Sanctuary but aware of impurity; do the oblivions combine?

Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is not what he said but he harvested half the volume of a dried fig in the morning, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig in the evening, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not address this, he said something similar. If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and half the volume of an olive being oblivious of the Sanctuary but aware of impurity; do the oblivions combine?

Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is not what he said but he harvested half the volume of a dried fig in the morning, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig in the evening, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not address this, he said something similar. If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and half the volume of an olive being oblivious of the Sanctuary but aware of impurity; do the oblivions combine?

Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is not what he said but he harvested half the volume of a dried fig in the morning, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig in the evening, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not address this, he said something similar. If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and half the volume of an olive being oblivious of the Sanctuary but aware of impurity; do the oblivions combine?

“And who selects.” Rebbi Yudan said, one picks out pebbles the entire day and does not incur liability, and one takes the volume of a dried fig and immediately incurs liability. How is this? If he was sitting on top of a heap of grain and picks out pebbles the entire day, he does not incur liability; if he took in his hand the volume of a dried fig and picked out he is liable.

“And who selects.” Rebbi Yudan said, one picks out pebbles the entire day and does not incur liability, and one takes the volume of a dried fig and immediately incurs liability. How is this? If he was sitting on top of a heap of grain and picks out pebbles the entire day, he does not incur liability; if he took in his hand the volume of a dried fig and picked out he is liable.

All these measures, if for food, in the volume of a dried fig, if for an animal, the mouthful of a kid goat, if to cook, to cook a quick egg, [ ], if to weave, the length of a double siṭ, if to spin, the width of a double siṭ.

MISHNAH: One who brings out straw filling the mouth of a cow, wood shavings filling the mouth of a camel, grain filling the mouth of a sheep, grasses filling the mouth of a goat. Moist garlic leaves and onion leaves the volume of a dried fig, if dry filling the mouth of a goat; they are not combined since their measures are not identical. One who brings out foodstuffs in the volume of a dried fig; they are combined since their measures are the same except for their shells, and their pits, and their stalks, and their grit, and their bran. Rebbi Jehudah says except for pods of lentils which are cooked with them.

MISHNAH: One who brings out straw filling the mouth of a cow, wood shavings filling the mouth of a camel, grain filling the mouth of a sheep, grasses filling the mouth of a goat. Moist garlic leaves and onion leaves the volume of a dried fig, if dry filling the mouth of a goat; they are not combined since their measures are not identical. One who brings out foodstuffs in the volume of a dried fig; they are combined since their measures are the same except for their shells, and their pits, and their stalks, and their grit, and their bran. Rebbi Jehudah says except for pods of lentils which are cooked with them.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

Rebbi Ḥanina said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he not say, the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged, and diminished, but it was not made small as before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. It was stated, dried like the volume of an olive, the words of Rebbi Nathan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he not say, the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged, and diminished, but it was not made small as before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. It was stated, dried like the volume of an olive, the words of Rebbi Nathan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

“Rebbi Simeon says, all are by a quartarius.” The Sages answer Rebbi Simeon: It is impossible to say honey by a quartarius, vinegar by a quartarius. But he answered them, just as you hold that all solid food combines for the volume of a dried date, so we hold that all drinks combine for a quartarius.

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

HALAKHAH: 5. “Reed to make a writing pen,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But at least that it reaches to the finger joints. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understands up to here. Maybe up to here? There, we have stated: “A pen of which the writing tip was broken off is impure because of the eraser. If the eraser was broken off it is impure because of the writing tip.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understand up to here. Maybe up to here? Rebbi Yose said, any “egg” which was stated in Kelim means the actual volume of an egg. In Šabbat in the volume of a dried fig, of an egg.

HALAKHAH: 5. “Reed to make a writing pen,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But at least that it reaches to the finger joints. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understands up to here. Maybe up to here? There, we have stated: “A pen of which the writing tip was broken off is impure because of the eraser. If the eraser was broken off it is impure because of the writing tip.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked, one understand up to here. Maybe up to here? Rebbi Yose said, any “egg” which was stated in Kelim means the actual volume of an egg. In Šabbat in the volume of a dried fig, of an egg.

It was stated: “A smooth stone the size of an olive, or a walnut, or an egg, he may take and cleanse his feet with it. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: up to a full hand.” Rav Jehudah said, Boetius ben Zenon was sitting and repeating before Rebbi; he said, so we are saying, it is necessary that he sit down and take it in his hand. He told him, everything is permitted except what is formed like a small sack. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: it may be like the base of a small mortar of a spice dealer. Rebbi Yose said, they only said, of a spice. But not of spices. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A pebble on which grasses grew he may take and cleanse his feet with it. But if he plucks off from it on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: It is forbidden to cleanse oneself with any potsherd. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only potsherds but even handles of amphoras, and anything which was brought into the fire and came out again. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, a pebble which had been used by another person and water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah one may not use to cleanse himself. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to cleanse himself with water which a dog licked. And it was stated so: One cleans himself neither with a dog’s mouth, nor in presence of a dog, nor with water which the dog had licked off, nor with water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah. And if somebody washes in the bath house or washes in a bathtub, it is bad for hemorrhoids. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Five things were said about a reed blade: One does not use it to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to clean teeth with it, nor does one use it to cut meat on the table, nor does one cleanse himself, because an evil spirit resides on it.

It was stated: “A smooth stone the size of an olive, or a walnut, or an egg, he may take and cleanse his feet with it. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: up to a full hand.” Rav Jehudah said, Boetius ben Zenon was sitting and repeating before Rebbi; he said, so we are saying, it is necessary that he sit down and take it in his hand. He told him, everything is permitted except what is formed like a small sack. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: it may be like the base of a small mortar of a spice dealer. Rebbi Yose said, they only said, of a spice. But not of spices. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A pebble on which grasses grew he may take and cleanse his feet with it. But if he plucks off from it on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: It is forbidden to cleanse oneself with any potsherd. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only potsherds but even handles of amphoras, and anything which was brought into the fire and came out again. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, a pebble which had been used by another person and water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah one may not use to cleanse himself. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to cleanse himself with water which a dog licked. And it was stated so: One cleans himself neither with a dog’s mouth, nor in presence of a dog, nor with water which the dog had licked off, nor with water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah. And if somebody washes in the bath house or washes in a bathtub, it is bad for hemorrhoids. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Five things were said about a reed blade: One does not use it to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to clean teeth with it, nor does one use it to cut meat on the table, nor does one cleanse himself, because an evil spirit resides on it.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

MISHNAH: One who takes out a peddler’s bag, even though it contains many kinds, is liable only for one purification sacrifice. Garden seeds less than the volume of a dried fig; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, five. Green melon seeds two, squash seeds two, Egyptian bean seeds two. A live locust in any amount, dead in the volume of a dried fig. A vineyard bird either live or dead in any amount since one keeps it as medicine. Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount since one keeps it as a toy for children.

MISHNAH: One who takes out a peddler’s bag, even though it contains many kinds, is liable only for one purification sacrifice. Garden seeds less than the volume of a dried fig; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, five. Green melon seeds two, squash seeds two, Egyptian bean seeds two. A live locust in any amount, dead in the volume of a dried fig. A vineyard bird either live or dead in any amount since one keeps it as medicine. Rebbi Jehudah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount since one keeps it as a toy for children.

“Garden seeds less than the volume of a dried fig; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, five.” What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? Because this is what one usually sows in a garden bed.

“A live locust in the most minute amount, dead in the volume of a dried fig..” That means, if it is pure. But if it is impure, a dog’s mouthful.

HALAKHAH: 2. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah is about a basket full of green melon and squash, where part of the food is inside and part outside. But a basket full of grain, when he took out in the volume of a dried fig he is liable. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s statement disagrees, as Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A crocheted cloth part of which was inside and part outside, if he took from one side and put it down on the other he is not liable. If he lifted it, only if he lifted it entirely at the same time.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose asked: This implies that if somebody took out the volume of a dried fig on his shoulder, he is liable. Is that the carrying of the Kehatites? But it is written, the office of Eleazar, Aaron’s son, the priest: The oil for illumination, the spice incense, the permanent flour offering, and the anointing oil. The oil for illumination in his right hand, the spice incense in his left hand, the permanent flour offering of that day hanging on his arm. Where was the anointing oil? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: a small flask he had on his money belt.

MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs less than a measure in a vessel is not liable even for the vessel since the vessel is an accessory to it, for a living person on a bier he is not liable even for the bier since the vessel is an accessory to him. For a dead person on a bier he is liable, and so for the volume of an olive from a dead person, or the volume of an olive from a carcass, or of a lentil from a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. He who takes out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two together took it out they are not liable. If one alone is unable to take it out and two took it out they are liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares them not liable.

MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs less than a measure in a vessel is not liable even for the vessel since the vessel is an accessory to it, for a living person on a bier he is not liable even for the bier since the vessel is an accessory to him. For a dead person on a bier he is liable, and so for the volume of an olive from a dead person, or the volume of an olive from a carcass, or of a lentil from a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. He who takes out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two together took it out they are not liable. If one alone is unable to take it out and two took it out they are liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares them not liable.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

It was stated: One experiments neither with fat nor with incest or adultery. One who experiments on the Sabbath is not liable, with fat or with incest or adultery is liable. How is this? If he said, “am going to harvest the volume half of a dried fig” and then he harvested the volume of a dried fig, he is not liable. “I am going to eat half the volume of an olive” and ate the volume of an olive; he is liable. “I am going to arouse myself by her” and then touched her; he is liable.

It was stated: One experiments neither with fat nor with incest or adultery. One who experiments on the Sabbath is not liable, with fat or with incest or adultery is liable. How is this? If he said, “am going to harvest the volume half of a dried fig” and then he harvested the volume of a dried fig, he is not liable. “I am going to eat half the volume of an olive” and ate the volume of an olive; he is liable. “I am going to arouse myself by her” and then touched her; he is liable.

It was stated: One experiments neither with fat nor with incest or adultery. One who experiments on the Sabbath is not liable, with fat or with incest or adultery is liable. How is this? If he said, “am going to harvest the volume half of a dried fig” and then he harvested the volume of a dried fig, he is not liable. “I am going to eat half the volume of an olive” and ate the volume of an olive; he is liable. “I am going to arouse myself by her” and then touched her; he is liable.

It was stated: One experiments neither with fat nor with incest or adultery. One who experiments on the Sabbath is not liable, with fat or with incest or adultery is liable. How is this? If he said, “am going to harvest the volume half of a dried fig” and then he harvested the volume of a dried fig, he is not liable. “I am going to eat half the volume of an olive” and ate the volume of an olive; he is liable. “I am going to arouse myself by her” and then touched her; he is liable.

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

HALAKHAH: 6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

“Round, one considers it as if square.” Again this is Rebbi Jehudah’s. They inferred it from the sea. He made the sea cast, ten cubits. It is impossible to say “circular” since already it was said “square”. It is impossible to say “square” since already it was said “circular”. If you said circular, it would turn out to contain 160 times the measure of purity. If you said square, it would turn out to contain 122 times the measure of purity. Therefore you have to say that the upper two cubits were circular, the lower three cubits were square and it turns out that it contained 150 times the measure of purity. One verse says, it contained 2’000 bat, but another verse says, it contained a volume of 3’000 bat. It is impossible to say 2’000 since already it says 3’000 and it is impossible to say 3’000 since already it says 2’000. Therefore you have 2’000 in fluid measure which are 3’000 in dry measure. From here the Sages learned that 40 seah in fluid measure are two kor in dry measure.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rav said, many are seventeen, few are sixteen. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any if it were distributed there would be the volume of a dried fig for everybody are many, otherwise they are few. (Paragraph.) They wanted to say that they do not disagree; what Rav said follows Rebbi Meïr, and he who follows Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa.

It was stated: Their words are close one to another. Come and see: One makes a loaf [the volume of] twelve eggs, the other makes a loaf of eight, and you are saying so? Rav Huna said, deduct a third for expenses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun gave to the bakers according to the statement of Rav Huna, but only for these measures.

“And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking.” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it. I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following: “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves”. And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread. And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it.

MISHNAH: And with the following vegetables a person can fulfill his obligation on Passover: With Romaine lettuce, with endives, with gingidium. harhabina and bitter herb. One fulfills his obligation with both fresh and wilted, but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth; and they may be combined for the volume of an olive. One fulfills his obligation with their stalk, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated.“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. And for these, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging.

MISHNAH: Dough in crannies of the baking trough: if there is the volume of an olive at one place one is obligated to eliminate; less than this becomes insignificant. Similarly in matters of impurity, if he is bothered by it it separates; if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough. Deaf dough is forbidden if a similar kind became sour.

MISHNAH: Similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem and remembers that he has with him sacrificial meat, if he passed Mount Scopus he burns it on the spot, otherwise he returns and burns it before the citadel on altar wood. Up to what do they return? Rebbi Meïr says, in both cases the size of an olive; Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases the size of an egg. But the Sages say, sacrificial meat in the volume of an olive, but leavened matter in that of an egg.

“How is ‘those who cannot eat it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a sick person, in the name of an old person, who cannot eat the volume of an olive. How about ‘those who did not subscribe to it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a different group.” This implies that a baby can be counted to disqualify. This implies that if one was on a distant trip and he slaughtered it in this person’s name, it is disqualified. This implies that it supports the Southerners, since the Southerners are saying, one thinks about parts which were lost as if they were in existence. This implies that if one slaughtered so that half of the group should eat, it is disqualified. Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it that all of them were sick. He told him, then one should have stated, “in the name of disqualified members of the group.” He said to him, if there were qualified people, but he slaughtered in the name of the disqualified.

For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of an olive, it is qualified. For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive, it is qualified a fortiori. For those who eat it in volumes of half an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive? Where do we hold? If intent was qualifying, intent is disqualifying. If intent is not disqualifying then the intent should be qualifying. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the intent in qualifying, as we have stated there: “To eat half the volume of an olive and to burn half the volume of an olive is qualified since slaughter and burning do not combine.” If he slaughtered it that half of its group should be covered, Rebbi Jonah disqualifies. It is as grabbing the cover for these and those. Since these are not covered, neither are those covered. Rebbi Yose said, it is qualified. During the second cycle, Rebbi Yose retracted. Rebbi Phineas said to him, did the rabbi not teach us, it is qualified. He told him, is this fixed for you by nails?

For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of an olive, it is qualified. For those who eat it in volumes of an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive, it is qualified a fortiori. For those who eat it in volumes of half an olive and those who cannot eat it in volumes of half an olive? Where do we hold? If intent was qualifying, intent is disqualifying. If intent is not disqualifying then the intent should be qualifying. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the intent in qualifying, as we have stated there: “To eat half the volume of an olive and to burn half the volume of an olive is qualified since slaughter and burning do not combine.” If he slaughtered it that half of its group should be covered, Rebbi Jonah disqualifies. It is as grabbing the cover for these and those. Since these are not covered, neither are those covered. Rebbi Yose said, it is qualified. During the second cycle, Rebbi Yose retracted. Rebbi Phineas said to him, did the rabbi not teach us, it is qualified. He told him, is this fixed for you by nails?

There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive.

There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive.

There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive.

There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive.

There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad majus. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which left what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? If you are saying that piggul and leftovers do not disqualify heave, about that which left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by [touching] itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives) he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there, this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment.

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives) he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there, this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment.

Rebbi Immi asked, if he removed from group to group (the volume of two olives) he is twice liable, because of do not remove from the house and do not remove to the outside. If they subscribed to a Pesaḥ, and an individual removed the volume of an olive, he is liable. Two or three persons are not liable since the members of the group may be drawn after them; but they infringe on a positive commandment; and following Rebbi Simeon they do not infringe. As it was stated, over the houses in which they are eating it there, this teaches that the Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places. I could think that its eaters also could eat it in two places, the verse says, in one house it shall be eaten. How is that? A Pesaḥ may be eaten in two places, but its eaters may not eat it in two places. [Rebbi Simeon says, also its eaters could eat it in two places.] How does Rebbi Simeon uphold in one house it shall be eaten? Lest part of one group eat inside and another part outside. An individual who removed the volume of an olive, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, becomes absolved from the positive commandment. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, why following Rebbi Simeon? Even following the rabbis, since the members of the group may be drawn after him, they are absolved from the prohibition; neither should they be under the positive commandment.

The waiter who ate the volume of an olive when he was near the oven, if he is intelligent he fills his belly from it. If they want to honor him, they come and eat with him near the oven; otherwise they give him his part and he eats at his place. There, they are saying, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since they did not hear what Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Issy, Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that at the start they may split, at the end they may not split. Where do they disagree? When they were sitting and a beam cracked over them. Rebbi Simeon says, part of them remove themselves and eat at another place, but the rabbis say, no part of them may remove themselves and eat at another place.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: Then one who removes should not be liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : One who removes is not liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but it was stated there, an individual who removed the volume of an olive from a group is liable but he did not disqualify himself as a member of the group. This implies, even if he did not eat. If you would say, he ate, why did he not disqualify himself as a member of the group? Rebbi Yose said, when he removed it he disqualified it. Even if he ate, he ate something disqualified. Where was this said? There is breaking after breaking but not removing after removing. Either this means that when he removes it, he disqualifies it, or it means that he is not liable up to the moment when he eats.

MISHNAH: If one says to his children, I am going to slaughter the Pesaḥ in the name of whoever of you will come first to Jerusalem. When the first of them entered with his head and most of his body, he acquired his part and acquires for his siblings with him. Forever one subscribes to it as long as there is the volume of an olive for each participant. One subscribes to it or cancels until it has been slaughtered; Rebbi Simeon says until the blood is poured.

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

Rav Huna said, if somebody dedicated his Pesaḥ and said, on condition that nobody else subscribe with me, nobody else can subscribe with him. If he dedicated it without specification, any who join are its subscribers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Does the Mishnah say so? “If thehouse be less, this teaches that they may continuously diminish, on condition that there always be one of the first group and one of the second group, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, either from the first or from the second, if only the Pesaḥ not be left alone.” If you are saying that any who join are its subscribers, then the members of the first group are the members of the second group. What is the difference between them? If he dedicated his Pesaḥ, withdrew from it but another person subscribed to it. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is qualified, in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira disqualified. In the opinion of Rav Ḥuna it is dedication by an individual and subject to the laws of substitution; in the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira it is dedication by partners and dedication of partners is not subject to the laws of substitution. If a hundred people subscribed to it simultaneously, Rav Ḥuna said, if there is the volume [of an olive for each of them], it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Zeˋira said, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. And it was stated thus: “If they subscribed and added subscribers, as long as there is the volume of an olive for each of them, it is qualified, otherwise disqualified.”

MISHNAH: One slaughters for the deep mourner, and one who digs out a collapsed building, and one who was promised that he would be freed from jail, the sick person or the old who are able to eat the volume of an olive. But for all of these one does not slaughter for themselves lest the Pesaḥ become disqualified. Therefore if a disqualification should occur they are not liable for the Second Pesaḥ except for one who digs out a collapsed building who from the start could expect to be impure.

MISHNAH: One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single person, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but Rebbi Yose permits. One does not slaughter for a group, even of a hundred, if none of them can eat the volume of an olive, and one does not form a group of women, slaves, and minors.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he not say, the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged, and diminished, but it was not made small as before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. It was stated, dried like the volume of an olive, the words of Rebbi Nathan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he not say, the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged, and diminished, but it was not made small as before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. It was stated, dried like the volume of an olive, the words of Rebbi Nathan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad maius. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which was left, what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which was left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? About that which was left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by touching itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

If he lifted half of it, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the fistful had been sanctified in a vessel, he did his duty if he burned even a sesame grain’s size of it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the Mishnah does not say so, only if he burned his fistful in two parts it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A fistful is not less than the volume of two olives, no burning is less than the volume of (a fistful) [an olive]. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar asked, then a Cohen whose hand could not hold the volume of two olives would be disqualified from the service?

If he lifted half of it, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the fistful had been sanctified in a vessel, he did his duty if he burned even a sesame grain’s size of it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the Mishnah does not say so, only if he burned his fistful in two parts it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A fistful is not less than the volume of two olives, no burning is less than the volume of (a fistful) [an olive]. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar asked, then a Cohen whose hand could not hold the volume of two olives would be disqualified from the service?

If he lifted half of it, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the fistful had been sanctified in a vessel, he did his duty if he burned even a sesame grain’s size of it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the Mishnah does not say so, only if he burned his fistful in two parts it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A fistful is not less than the volume of two olives, no burning is less than the volume of (a fistful) [an olive]. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar asked, then a Cohen whose hand could not hold the volume of two olives would be disqualified from the service?

And he shall lift. There is no lifting unless he left a remainder. Which ate. there is no eating less than the volume of an olive. If all of it was the volume of an olive? You may not take part of it since there would not be the volume of an olive; you may not take all of it since there would not be a remainder. And he lifts … what the fire ate. I could think wood, the verse says, the elevation sacrifice. If elevation sacrifice, I could think limbs of an elevation sacrifice; the verse says, what the fire ate. How is this? He scoops up from what has been consumed in the middle and descends. It is an obligation to bring wood before fire, as it is said, they shall arrange on thefire, He mentioned wood before fire. If one arranged before he removed, he throws down and removes, disassembles and removes.

And he shall lift. There is no lifting unless he left a remainder. Which ate. there is no eating less than the volume of an olive. If all of it was the volume of an olive? You may not take part of it since there would not be the volume of an olive; you may not take all of it since there would not be a remainder. And he lifts … what the fire ate. I could think wood, the verse says, the elevation sacrifice. If elevation sacrifice, I could think limbs of an elevation sacrifice; the verse says, what the fire ate. How is this? He scoops up from what has been consumed in the middle and descends. It is an obligation to bring wood before fire, as it is said, they shall arrange on thefire, He mentioned wood before fire. If one arranged before he removed, he throws down and removes, disassembles and removes.

And he shall lift. There is no lifting unless he left a remainder. Which ate. there is no eating less than the volume of an olive. If all of it was the volume of an olive? You may not take part of it since there would not be the volume of an olive; you may not take all of it since there would not be a remainder. And he lifts … what the fire ate. I could think wood, the verse says, the elevation sacrifice. If elevation sacrifice, I could think limbs of an elevation sacrifice; the verse says, what the fire ate. How is this? He scoops up from what has been consumed in the middle and descends. It is an obligation to bring wood before fire, as it is said, they shall arrange on thefire, He mentioned wood before fire. If one arranged before he removed, he throws down and removes, disassembles and removes.

Could they make spouts one on top of the other? Rebbi Jonah said, for the maximum day of the daily sacrifice. The top because of a vessel reduced in its majority. But is the lower not in the category of volume inside a vessel? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates. Rebbi Simeon ben Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The Sea was a place of immersion of the Cohanim, and the Sea for the Cohanim to wash in it. But was it not a vessel? A water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates.

It was stated: If he burned the size of an olive outside he is liable; less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The public has fulfilled its obligation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, since it was stated that if he burned the size of an olive outside he is liable, from this you infer that less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable.

It was stated: If he burned the size of an olive outside he is liable; less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The public has fulfilled its obligation. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, since it was stated that if he burned the size of an olive outside he is liable, from this you infer that less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable.

MISHNAH: He who eats the volume of a big date with its pit or who drinks the volume of a full gulp on the day of Atonement is liable. All foods combine for the volume of a date, and all drinks combine for the mouthful. What he ate and drank does not combine.

MISHNAH: He who eats the volume of a big date with its pit or who drinks the volume of a full gulp on the day of Atonement is liable. All foods combine for the volume of a date, and all drinks combine for the mouthful. What he ate and drank does not combine.

MISHNAH: He who eats the volume of a big date with its pit or who drinks the volume of a full gulp on the day of Atonement is liable. All foods combine for the volume of a date, and all drinks combine for the mouthful. What he ate and drank does not combine.

HALAKHAH: Why? Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. From where that drinking is subsumed under eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? But we hold, as it is. And the Torah called it eating. And was it not stated: If one liquefied fat and drank it, or congealed blood and ate it, [if there is the volume of an olive] he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and understood if from the following:: You shall spend the money for anything you desire. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste of the wine? [But we hold as it is and the Torah called it “eating.”] The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about orzaraya and gomnany, since anything that is ancillary to food is like food.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

Rebbi Ḥanan said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rebbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Shammai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he call it the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged. But some are saying, it was diminished more than before. What is the measure of a cup? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Pazi, Rebbi Yose ben Bevin in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Bevin in the name of Samuel: Rebbi Nathan follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rebbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

MISHNAH: It happened that one brought Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai a dish to taste, and Rabban Gamliel two dates and a pail of water and they said, bring them to the sukkah. But when one gave Rebbi Ṣadoq food in the volume of less than an egg he took it with a napkin, ate it outside of the sukkah, and did not recite a benediction afterwards.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, you shall sit, and it says there, at the door of the Tent of Meeting they shall sit day and night. Since for the sitting mentioned there He made nights like days, so also for the sitting mentioned here we shall make nights like days. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth for Passover and it is said fifteenth for Tabernacles. Since for fifteenth said for Passover the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional, so also for fifteenth said for Tabernacles the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional. The colleagues asked, since there only that one comes to eat mazzah with an appetite, so also here only they come to eat in the sukkah with appetite? Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Since there only one has to eat mazzah in the volume of an olive, so also here only one has to eat grain [in the sukkah] in the volume of an olive? Rebbi Hoshaia said, the sukkah is obligatory all seven days. Rebbi Berekhiah said, they disagree. Rebbi Abuna said, they do not disagree. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he put his mind to it; what Rebbi Hoshaia said, if he did not put his mind to it.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, you shall sit, and it says there, at the door of the Tent of Meeting they shall sit day and night. Since for the sitting mentioned there He made nights like days, so also for the sitting mentioned here we shall make nights like days. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth for Passover and it is said fifteenth for Tabernacles. Since for fifteenth said for Passover the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional, so also for fifteenth said for Tabernacles the first night is obligatory and the remaining days are optional. The colleagues asked, since there only that one comes to eat mazzah with an appetite, so also here only they come to eat in the sukkah with appetite? Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Since there only one has to eat mazzah in the volume of an olive, so also here only one has to eat grain [in the sukkah] in the volume of an olive? Rebbi Hoshaia said, the sukkah is obligatory all seven days. Rebbi Berekhiah said, they disagree. Rebbi Abuna said, they do not disagree. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he put his mind to it; what Rebbi Hoshaia said, if he did not put his mind to it.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive, for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”.

Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder came to his house. They told him, we forgot to make eruv. He asked them, are there peas left from yesterday? They said to him, yes. Does this imply, even one kind? It contained spinach. Does this imply even if it is less than the volume of an olive? It was a full measure. Does that imply that it does not need a declaration? Rav Ḥisda said, the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya had made a stipulation.

Rav said, I am saying not less than the volume of an olive. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, for me and for him who did not make eruv? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: An eruv needs a measure neither at the start nor at the end. “On a holiday which falls on a Friday one makes eruv neither for courtyards nor for domains, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one makes eruv for courtyards but does not make eruv for domains”. One makes eruv for courtyards, because it allows something which is allowed to him, but does not make eruv for domains, because you would permit him something which is prohibited to him. There are Tannaim who switch. Rebbi Eleazar said, since there are Tannaim who switch, we have to take notice. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: He who wants to do it right makes the eruv the day before. Rebbi Yudan said, what you are saying is when he did not make eruv tavshilin, but if he made eruv tavshilin it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does eruv tavshilin permit dividers?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.