worry

In response the Lord said, “Truly I tell you, no one will be saved unless they [believe] in my cross, [because] the kingdom of God belongs to those who’ve believed in my cross. So become those who seek death, like the dead who seek life; because what they seek is revealed to them. So what do they have to worry about? When you turn to the subject of death, it will teach you about election. Truly I tell you, no one who’s afraid of death will be saved, because the kingdom of <God> belongs to those who are put to death. Become better than I; be like the child of the Holy Spirit.”

There is no envy in his thoughts, no malicious person maketh his soul to pine away, nor worry with insatiable desire in his mind.

On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.

The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi disagrees since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi read psalms afterwards. But have we not stated: One does not say words after Emet Weyaẓiv? He explains that as relating to Emet Weyaẓiv of the morning prayers, since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering, immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, immediately after redemption comes prayer. Immediately after leaning comes slaughtering: “He shall lean … he shall slaughter” (Lev. 1:4–5). Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.” Immediately after redemption comes prayer, (Ps. 19:15) “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill” and it is written after that (Ps. 20:2) “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: For anyone who immediately slaughters after leaning, no disqualification will appear regarding his sacrifice. For anyone who immediately pronounces the benediction after washing his hands, Satan will not find anything to accuse about at that meal. For anyone who immediately prays after mentioning redemption, Satan will not find anything to accuse him of the entire day. Rebbi Zeïra said, I am used to immediately pray after mentioning redemption and I was conscripted to forced labor, to bring myrrh to the Palace. They said to him: our teacher, that is an honor. There are people who pay money to see the inside of the Palace. Rebbi Immi said: Anyone who does not immediately pray after mentioning redemption, whom is he to be likened to? To an acquaintance of the king who comes from afar to the king’s door. When the king comes to see what he wants, he finds that the person left. Hence, the king also leaves.

How does he do it? He brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him the first one. Do we not have to worry that the one used to contain tithes in it was gleanings? Rebbi Jonah said, he brings two ears and says: If this one is gleanings, all is fine; but if not, then its tithes are contained in the other one, and he gives him one of them.

May one determine the Second in place of the First? His sharecropper brought fruits to Rebbi Yose ben Shaul. He said to him, go and fix a place for the Second. He returned, and he told him, go and fix a place for the First. Should he not worry that maybe the Second was fixed at a place reserved for the First? This means that it is permitted to determine the Second in place of the First.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his box was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his box was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his box was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first sentence also gives the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah. But the rabbis say, one who gives to his mother-in-law is like one who gives to his neighbor. As we have stated: “He who gives bread to his neighbor to bake for him, or a dish to cook for him, has to worry neither about the Sabbatical year nor about tithes. That is, if he also gave her sour dough or spices. But if he did not give sour dough and spices, he worries about the Sabbatical year and about tithes.”

If somebody had 100 figs, 50 large ones and 50 small ones. If he takes from the large ones, should he take nine? If he takes from the small ones, should he take eleven? If he takes ten large ones, there might be one profane among them and we would worry lest perhaps he use that one to make it heave of the tithe for another place, but it is written (Num. 18:26): “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,” not profane from tithe. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem und continue until it reaches; in each of the ten there is heave of the tithe and a tiny bit of profane.

That takes care of large quantities. If there was little, if he had ten figs, five large ones and five small ones? If he takes from the large ones, he has to take one minus a little. From the little ones, he has to take one plus a little. If he took one of the large ones, it contains a little bit of profane and one has to worry that maybe he turns that profane part into heave of the tithe for another place, and it is written (Num. 18:26): “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,” not profane from tithe. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem and he marks it and says to the Cohen, as far as where I marked it.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.

MISHNAH: If someone hides turnips and radishes under a vine and some of the leaves were showing he does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath. If someone sows wheat and barley together, that is kilaim. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is not kilaim unless there are two wheat kernels and a barley kernel, or a wheat kernel and two barley kernels, or one each of wheat, barley, and spelt.

What are we dealing with? If he wants only to test, even in the middle of his field it should be permitted. If he does not intend only to test, why just linseed, and not any other kinds? We deal with the case he wants to test. Rebbi Yose does not worry about bad appearances; the rabbis worry about bad appearances.

What are we dealing with? If he wants only to test, even in the middle of his field it should be permitted. If he does not intend only to test, why just linseed, and not any other kinds? We deal with the case he wants to test. Rebbi Yose does not worry about bad appearances; the rabbis worry about bad appearances.

HALAKHAH: “When may one bring out,” etc. Is it permitted to assemble a dungheap at the door of one’s courtyard before the agricultural workers stop? Silanus asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and he forbade it to him. Rebbi Ḥanina said, he permitted it, and they were gossipping about him that he was taking the tithe. He instructed himself to leave the Land, so that he could not take the tithe. Then should it be forbidden even after the agricultural workers did stop because of the bad impression, that they would not say, he brings it out to his irrigated field? The people of one’s town know whether he has an irrigated field or not. Rebbi Yose said, this means that they did not worry about a bad impression on passers-by.

“The potter may sell”. Should we not worry and say, maybe he will switch? Rebbi Jonah said, one recognizes, these are for wine and those for oil. Rebbi Ulla said, the material of these is known and the material of those is known.

Rebbi Abbahu said: There are Samaritan places permitted since the days of Joshua bin Nun and they remain permitted. Rebbi Yose inquired: If that is so, Cohanim should not worry about their ḥallah. But we see that rabbis worry! Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, it is not because of what you said, but because it never was absolutely under government control.

Rebbi Abbahu said: There are Samaritan places permitted since the days of Joshua bin Nun and they remain permitted. Rebbi Yose inquired: If that is so, Cohanim should not worry about their ḥallah. But we see that rabbis worry! Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, it is not because of what you said, but because it never was absolutely under government control.

“One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil.” “If somebody has a headache or he has a scab, he may rub with oil but not with wine or vinegar.” One does not use Sabbatical oil as base for perfumes but one may buy sweet oil before the Sabbatical without worry. Rebbi Ammi thought, even from one who is suspect. Rebbi Assi told him, they said that only if one does not know whether he is suspect or not. But if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden.

It was stated: One may not use Sabbatical oil to caulk an oven or a hearth; one does not use it to rub on shoes and sandals. Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it.

Is Sabbatical straw forbidden as aftergrowth? Rebbi Levi from Sennabaris asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda and he permitted it. Rebbi Zeïra said, since I did not want to rely on myself I asked those from Beit Barsana and they said, we used to collect straw before the start of the Sabbatical and when we are running out, we bring it from the walls. Rebbi Jeremiah said, a baraita states that it is permitted, as it was stated: “Dyers and cattle feeders may buy coarse bran from everywhere without worry.” Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, even from one who is suspect. Rebbi Yose said to him, they said that only if he does not know whether he is suspect. Only if he might not be suspect; therefore if it is clear that he is suspect, it is forbidden. Rebbi Shammai said, a Mishnah says that it is forbidden, as we have stated there: “In matters of Sabbatical, kilaim in a vineyard, or dedicated things, if there is enough in both seed and wood to give taste.”

Who stated “a minor”? This does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “A minor whom his father put in a melon field where he was giving heave and his father sold on that basis, his heave is heave. He did not give heave but his father confirmed his action.” When the father came and confirmed his action, is heave made retroactively or for the future? Rebbi Shammai said, let us hear from the following: “When the owner came and found him standing on his property, if he said to him, take from these nice [fruits], if they are nice he does not worry about robbery, otherwise he has to worry. But if he collected and gave to him, in no case does he have to worry about robbery.” Can you say it became heave retroactively? No, from now into the future! Here also, it will be made heave from now on into the future.

Who stated “a minor”? This does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “A minor whom his father put in a melon field where he was giving heave and his father sold on that basis, his heave is heave. He did not give heave but his father confirmed his action.” When the father came and confirmed his action, is heave made retroactively or for the future? Rebbi Shammai said, let us hear from the following: “When the owner came and found him standing on his property, if he said to him, take from these nice [fruits], if they are nice he does not worry about robbery, otherwise he has to worry. But if he collected and gave to him, in no case does he have to worry about robbery.” Can you say it became heave retroactively? No, from now into the future! Here also, it will be made heave from now on into the future.

Who stated “a minor”? This does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “A minor whom his father put in a melon field where he was giving heave and his father sold on that basis, his heave is heave. He did not give heave but his father confirmed his action.” When the father came and confirmed his action, is heave made retroactively or for the future? Rebbi Shammai said, let us hear from the following: “When the owner came and found him standing on his property, if he said to him, take from these nice [fruits], if they are nice he does not worry about robbery, otherwise he has to worry. But if he collected and gave to him, in no case does he have to worry about robbery.” Can you say it became heave retroactively? No, from now into the future! Here also, it will be made heave from now on into the future.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An Israel who told a Levite: “You have a kor of tithe in my hand and here is its price;” the latter must worry about the heave of the tithe contained in it. For example, Elopisa gave tithes to Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, it is in order. He went and asked Rebbi Joḥanan who said to him, our brother Elopisa is trustworthy. Rebbi Issa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, is that following Rebbi Yose, for “Rebbi Yose said: The owner who gave heave from the tithes, what he did is done.” He said to him, Babylonian, you understood it.

Heave of the tithe is taken from pure produce for pure, from impure for impure, from pure for impure, but not from impure for pure. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, just as it may not be taken from impure for pure, so it may not be taken from impure for impure. Rebbi Neḥemiah agrees in the case of demay. That is, if he has from the same kind. If he does not have anything from the same kind, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya went with Rebbi Zeïra to Ḥammat Gader. He bought him a roll and wanted to put it in order from one day to the next. He said to him: We do not have to worry about a single opinion! Can you say that he had from the same kind?

Blood on a loaf of bread one shaves off and eats [the bread]. If it came from between his teeth he eats and does not worry. The abominations among mites, flies, wild bees, abominations and crawling things, I might think [that they are forbidden] while they are inside the fruit, the verse says (Lev. 11:26,27,28): “They are impure,” when they exist independently rather than inside the fruit. I might think, even if they left and returned; the verse says “they are impure,” even if they left and returned. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: As soon as they reach the rim of the food they are forbidden even if they return.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from impure animals. As we have stated: “If the Gentile stands and milks the herd, if a Jew stands nearby there is no worry.” Rav Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Why is Gentiles’ milk forbidden? Because of the uncovering. Let him make cheese? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison between the holes.

It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, one may eat figs and grapes in the night without worry, since it is said (Ps. 116:6) “the Eternal watches over the simple-minded.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: A fish with pecking marks is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav: A living fish with pecking marks is forbidden. If it is salted, through the salt it trembles. Dead, one cuts out the place of the pecking.

You say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Meїr will not agree. But did we not state: “When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure.” And if it follows Rebbi Meїr, whether it contains enough to lift it or does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure? In addition, from what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication.” A person says “this is not the implication” only if he agrees with the premise. How is that? There, the Torah cares about the money of the Jews, here what can you say? Does he not here also cayse him to lose money since he needs fire wood to burn each lot separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah, the Second of the Cohanim.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If a heap of onions produced roots, if one takes from them on the Sabbath he is free since he does not want their growing roots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him: What is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? Did we not state: “He does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abbahu: Look, what did he say! He said only, what is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? So he would worry about the Sabbatical for if he would like them to grow roots they would be forbidden because of aftergrowth; otherwise they are permitted because of aftergrowth. Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeїra, is that the strongest? If he had stated about a single onion in the hand it would be fine.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If a heap of onions produced roots, if one takes from them on the Sabbath he is free since he does not want their growing roots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him: What is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? Did we not state: “He does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abbahu: Look, what did he say! He said only, what is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? So he would worry about the Sabbatical for if he would like them to grow roots they would be forbidden because of aftergrowth; otherwise they are permitted because of aftergrowth. Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeїra, is that the strongest? If he had stated about a single onion in the hand it would be fine.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If a heap of onions produced roots, if one takes from them on the Sabbath he is free since he does not want their growing roots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him: What is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? Did we not state: “He does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abbahu: Look, what did he say! He said only, what is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? So he would worry about the Sabbatical for if he would like them to grow roots they would be forbidden because of aftergrowth; otherwise they are permitted because of aftergrowth. Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeїra, is that the strongest? If he had stated about a single onion in the hand it would be fine.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If a heap of onions produced roots, if one takes from them on the Sabbath he is free since he does not want their growing roots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him: What is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? Did we not state: “He does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abbahu: Look, what did he say! He said only, what is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? So he would worry about the Sabbatical for if he would like them to grow roots they would be forbidden because of aftergrowth; otherwise they are permitted because of aftergrowth. Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeїra, is that the strongest? If he had stated about a single onion in the hand it would be fine.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “ He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rebbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rebbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I am saying that he gave him that of the fire. Rebbi Mana said to him, Rebbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “ He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rebbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Hoshaiah? Rebbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For ḥallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I saw Simeon ben Cahana drinking heave wine in Acco. When he said, this was brought from Cilicia, they decided about him and he drank it on a ship. Would not people say that one imports heave from outside into the Land? Let us say, he did not go into Acco. Where did he drink it? Outside the string or inside? Let us say, outside the string. Rebbi Jonah said, even if you say inside the string, they did not worry about bad appearances on a ship.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry. Some want to say, because it is for a short time; but some want to say because of cleanliness or danger. What is the difference between them? To separate lettuce leaves. For him who says, because it is for a short time, it is forbidden. For him who says, because of cleanliness or danger, it is permitted. Rav Jeremiah visited Rav Assi, who mixed a cup for him. He started inspecting it. His house companion said to him, look what he is doing! He told her, because he follows his teacher’s argument, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry. Some want to say, because it is for a short time; but some want to say because of cleanliness or danger. What is the difference between them? To separate lettuce leaves. For him who says, because it is for a short time, it is forbidden. For him who says, because of cleanliness or danger, it is permitted. Rav Jeremiah visited Rav Assi, who mixed a cup for him. He started inspecting it. His house companion said to him, look what he is doing! He told her, because he follows his teacher’s argument, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry.

Their cheese. Rebbi Jeremiah said, why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from forbidden animals. It was stated so: “There is nothing to worry if the Jew stands with the herd while the Gentile milks and brings to him.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering. Let him make cheese! Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison left between the holes. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net on top. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah the barrels of the Great Assembly were uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does set traps for wild animals, or birds, of fish,” etc. Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was day. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was day. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish”. Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found.

How many nails should it have? Rebbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥanina said seven, corresponding to your days are your steps. The rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Ḥanina. Rebbi Aḥa explained following Rebbi Ḥanina: nine. Rebbi put thirteen on one [shoe] and eleven on the other, for the number of watches. And like planted nails, since the watches are 24, so the nails 24. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rebbi Zeˋira asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: may one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may oil them or dip them in water. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. Rebbi was asked and said, one does not scrape. Rebbi Zeˋira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina follow him who said he scrapes but only with the back of a knife. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rebbi and were oiling and rinsing, but not scraping. Nobody should anoint his foot in a boot or his foot in a sandal but he may oil his foot and step into his boot or oil his foot and step into his sandal. One may oil himself and roll on a new tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it.

An adult who was taken captive among Gentiles. Rav and Samuel, one said, he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, but the other said, he keeps the Sabbath and counts six. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, five and keeps the Sabbath, four and keeps the Sabbath, three and keeps the Sabbath, two and keeps the Sabbath, one and keeps the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he was abducted on Tuesday he makes the Sabbath (great was his power) [profane]. At the second period he makes the Sabbath (if not to wonder) [only the eighth]. Therefore he should worry about all days, as by the following: If he preliminarily married a woman in Elam. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he worries about all women. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not worry about all women. There he has a fix, he may marry a convert, he may marry a freedwoman. Here what do you have? There, they are saying, he worries about all days and works for the necessities of life.

An adult who was taken captive among Gentiles. Rav and Samuel, one said, he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, but the other said, he keeps the Sabbath and counts six. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, five and keeps the Sabbath, four and keeps the Sabbath, three and keeps the Sabbath, two and keeps the Sabbath, one and keeps the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he was abducted on Tuesday he makes the Sabbath (great was his power) [profane]. At the second period he makes the Sabbath (if not to wonder) [only the eighth]. Therefore he should worry about all days, as by the following: If he preliminarily married a woman in Elam. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he worries about all women. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not worry about all women. There he has a fix, he may marry a convert, he may marry a freedwoman. Here what do you have? There, they are saying, he worries about all days and works for the necessities of life.

Rebbi Abba (bar) Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi disagreed. One said, one spits and crushes; the other said, one does not spit and crush. Where do they differ? If it is not on a mosaic floor. But if there is a mosaic floor he spits and crushes. If he spat and the wind carried it away he is liable because of winnowing; and for anything which is diminished by the wind one is liable because of winnowing.

Rebbi Onias, Jacob from Afartaim in the name of Rebbi: The Eternal will remove from you all sickness, that is fever. Rebbi Ḥuna who stated it in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, the Eternal will remove from you all sickness, that is worry, as Rebbi Eleazar said, he will put an iron yoke on your neck, this is worry. Rebbi Abun said, the Eternal will remove from you all sickness, that is the evil impulse whose start is sweet but whose end is bitter. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Menaḥema in the name of Rav: The Eternal will remove from you all sickness, that is the gall bladder, as Rebbi Eleazar said, ninety-nine die because of gall and one by the hand of Heaven.

Rebbi Onias, Jacob from Afartaim in the name of Rebbi: The Eternal will remove from you all sickness, that is fever. Rebbi Ḥuna who stated it in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, the Eternal will remove from you all sickness, that is worry, as Rebbi Eleazar said, he will put an iron yoke on your neck, this is worry. Rebbi Abun said, the Eternal will remove from you all sickness, that is the evil impulse whose start is sweet but whose end is bitter. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Menaḥema in the name of Rav: The Eternal will remove from you all sickness, that is the gall bladder, as Rebbi Eleazar said, ninety-nine die because of gall and one by the hand of Heaven.

MISHNAH: One may put food in a cistern for preservation, and potable water into bad one to cool, and cold water into hot to warm it. One whose garments became soaked on the road walks in them without worry. If he comes to an outer courtyard he puts them out to dry in the sun but not in public.

HALAKHAH: “Wide enough to carry a tile,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, strong even if it is not wide. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, since you are saying that practice follows this one and that one, one may follow this one or that one without worry. Rebbi Mana said, since it was said that practice follows the rabbis, one disregards individuals and acts following the rabbis.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose: This you are saying if they are using the hole. But if they are using the outside it is permitted. It was stated thus: If three balconies are one above the other it is forbidden to pass from the upper one to the lower one passing by the middle one, but one may pass from the courtyard to the roof without worry. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac says, this you mean from the inside but from the outside it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, both inside and outside are forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Zeˋira: “One lowers a pot with meat from a ledge which is ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide. If a window of four hand-breadths was in between it is forbidden since one does not pass from one domain to another through a [third] domain.” What does Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac do with this? He explains it (if captive) [if equal].

“Holes in the house, the upper and the lower ones, and the veranda, and the ditch, and the upper floor, and the roof of the olive press, and the roof of the tower, the storage room of straw, and the cattle stable, and the storage room of wood, and the storage room of provisions, wine storage, and oil storage, and produce storage, do not need checking.” One understands the upper ones. The lower ones? Does this mean that they did not worry about things falling down? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if both were close to the wall, whether higher than ten or lower than ten [hand-breadths]. Did we not state “the ditch”? Does this not mean that they did not worry about things falling down? The toddler is afraid to go there. But should one not be afraid that leavened matter rolled there? Explain it by a ditch which has a rim. “And the roof of the olive press, and the roof of the tower.” That is, if they are three hand-breadths high; but if they are not three hand-breadths high they are like ground. And if they were not used for leavened matter, but if they were used for leavened matter even if it is very high it needs checking. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. Would we say that this papyrus scaffold which is very high should not need checking?

“Holes in the house, the upper and the lower ones, and the veranda, and the ditch, and the upper floor, and the roof of the olive press, and the roof of the tower, the storage room of straw, and the cattle stable, and the storage room of wood, and the storage room of provisions, wine storage, and oil storage, and produce storage, do not need checking.” One understands the upper ones. The lower ones? Does this mean that they did not worry about things falling down? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if both were close to the wall, whether higher than ten or lower than ten [hand-breadths]. Did we not state “the ditch”? Does this not mean that they did not worry about things falling down? The toddler is afraid to go there. But should one not be afraid that leavened matter rolled there? Explain it by a ditch which has a rim. “And the roof of the olive press, and the roof of the tower.” That is, if they are three hand-breadths high; but if they are not three hand-breadths high they are like ground. And if they were not used for leavened matter, but if they were used for leavened matter even if it is very high it needs checking. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. Would we say that this papyrus scaffold which is very high should not need checking?

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a couch which was separated in the house but wood and stones are stored under it, one checks at the outside but does not have to check on the inside.” Because wood and stones are stored under it, but if no wood and stones are stored under it, one has to check on the inside. Does this mean that they did (not) worry about things falling down? I am saying that (a child exerted himself and) [an unruly child] brought leavened matter there.

“Where did they say two rows in the cellar,” etc. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He peels it like a Gamma. Bar Qappara stated, he peels it like two Gamma. If it was situated in the middle of the room. In the opinion of Rav Huna he strips it of one garment, in the opinion of Bar Qappara he strips it of two garments. If it was built in steps, he strips it by many Gamma. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The outermost row which is the uppermost which sees both door and beam of the roof, [and] the one inside of it. It was stated: the one below it. They wanted to say that he who says, the one inside of it, so much more that one below it. He who says, the one below it, therefore not the one inside of it. If half a row was used, it is obvious that what was used has inside of it and below it. That which was not used has inside of it and below it. That is to say, if they are spaced. But if they are tightly packed he passes the light over them and it is enough. Does this mean that they did worry about things falling down? Rebbi Phineas from Yafo said, I am saying that the servant introduced leavened matter when he placed them.

And you are saying, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Meïr will not agree? But did we not state: When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure. And if it follows Rebbi Meïr, whether it is a vat which contains enough to lift it or a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure? In addition, from what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication,” nobody says “this is not” unless he agrees with the premise. How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in order to care for the property of Jews; here what do you have? Does the Jew not lose money even here? For he needs to burn wood separately and this separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥanina the executive officer of the Cohanim; and one cannot infer anything.

“One does not show a thumb in the Temple,” because of the tricksters. One does not say from whom in the Temple, but the overseer lifts the cap of one of them and they know that the lottery (proceeds) [starts] from there. Should we not worry, maybe for a friend or a relative? They formed a snail. How was the lottery proceeding, to the right or to the left? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since we did state, the one winning the incense says to the one on his right side, you are with me with the pan, this implies that it proceeded to the right. The students of Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hilfai: It is as follows. The lottery proceeds to the left, the winner adds to the right. It is preferable that one should win over whom the lottery passed twice, rather than one over whom the lottery passed only once.

May one witness be believed? It is different here since one cannot control him; should we not worry and say, by the time somebody climbs up and goes out it will shine? The matter can be verified. If one witness says, this male was born on the Sabbath, one circumcises him on his word. Rebbi Immi was carrying on the result of elapsed time. Rebbi Mattaniah was carrying on the saying of the moon shining. Rebbi Immi was (carrying) [circumcising] on the saying of women, the sun was over Hippos.

Two Cohanim escaped the wars. One said, I was standing and purifying; the other one said, I was walking and purifying. Rebbi Yudan said, this implies, he who does it one way does not worry, and he who does it the other way does not worry.

Two Cohanim escaped the wars. One said, I was standing and purifying; the other one said, I was walking and purifying. Rebbi Yudan said, this implies, he who does it one way does not worry, and he who does it the other way does not worry.

“Washing”. Rebbi Zeˋurah bar Ḥama, [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina.] in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: On a public fast day one washes as usual his face, hands, and feet. On the Ninth of Av one washes his hands and moves them over his face. On the day of Atonement one washes his hands, dries them with a towel, and moves the towel over his face. Rebbi Jonah moistened a rag and put it under the water pitcher. But did we not state that there is no difference between a public fast and the Ninth of Av except the prohibition of work at places where they were used to it? If somebody was going to his teacher or to his daughter and crossed a lake or a river he does not worry. If his feet were dirtied he immerses them in water and does not worry. Rebbi Abba instructed following this Tanna. Rebbi Aḥa instructed that one who comes from the road and his feet are dulled, he may wash them in water. It was stated: A mourner and one in the ban on a trip are permitted leather shoes. When they come to the town they shall take them off. The same applies to a public fast and the Ninth of Av.

“Washing”. Rebbi Zeˋurah bar Ḥama, [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina.] in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: On a public fast day one washes as usual his face, hands, and feet. On the Ninth of Av one washes his hands and moves them over his face. On the day of Atonement one washes his hands, dries them with a towel, and moves the towel over his face. Rebbi Jonah moistened a rag and put it under the water pitcher. But did we not state that there is no difference between a public fast and the Ninth of Av except the prohibition of work at places where they were used to it? If somebody was going to his teacher or to his daughter and crossed a lake or a river he does not worry. If his feet were dirtied he immerses them in water and does not worry. Rebbi Abba instructed following this Tanna. Rebbi Aḥa instructed that one who comes from the road and his feet are dulled, he may wash them in water. It was stated: A mourner and one in the ban on a trip are permitted leather shoes. When they come to the town they shall take them off. The same applies to a public fast and the Ninth of Av.

HALAKHAH: “He who pays the sheqel,” etc. We have stated, “if the sums were disbursed.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “if the animal was sacrificed.” Rebbi Eleazar said, who is the Tanna of “if the animal was sacrificed”? Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, he receives his money immediately, the priests are quick. It is difficult. If somebody stole another’s elevation offering and slaughtered it without special mention, is it not without special mention atoning for the original owner? Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim throwing it into the chest. But should one not worry that maybe it will become part of the remainder; is there me`ilah for the remainder? But it must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, there is me`ilah for the remainder. Still if it was a definite object, like that of the House of Rabban Gamliel who was taking aim and disbursed it in his name.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mix-up.” Maybe one of them would die and it turn out that moneys of dying purification sacrifices were mixed up in them. [But did we not state] (It was stated): A woman who said, I have to bring a nest, brings the money for the nest and puts it in the horn, and eats from sancta without worry. And the Cohen does not worry that maybe moneys of dying purification sacrifices are mixed up in them. [For what we are saying is about purification sacrifices whose owner certainly died. We could say, let us choose two zuz and throw them into the River, then the remainder should be permitted, but do we not say in general that Rebbi Jehudah does not accept retroactive choices?]

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mix-up.” Maybe one of them would die and it turn out that moneys of dying purification sacrifices were mixed up in them. [But did we not state] (It was stated): A woman who said, I have to bring a nest, brings the money for the nest and puts it in the horn, and eats from sancta without worry. And the Cohen does not worry that maybe moneys of dying purification sacrifices are mixed up in them. [For what we are saying is about purification sacrifices whose owner certainly died. We could say, let us choose two zuz and throw them into the River, then the remainder should be permitted, but do we not say in general that Rebbi Jehudah does not accept retroactive choices?]

May one witness be believed? It is different here since one cannot control him; should we not worry and say, by the time somebody climbs up and goes out it will shine? The matter can be verified. If one witness says, this male was born on a Sabbath, one circumcises him on his word. It is dark at the end of the Sabbath, one carries (him) on his word. Rebbi Immi was carrying on the result of elapsed time. Rebbi Mattaniah was carrying on the saying of the moon shining. Rebbi Immi was circumcising on the saying of women, the sun was over Hippos.

“In the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, my father once ate at Rabban Gamliel’s when they brought before him oily fish sauces containing ground pepper. When he tasted this, he put it away. They said to him, do not worry, they were ground the day before.” But would not Rebbi Ṣadoq be as in error with Rabban Gamliel and could eat? But not to permit work by the example of Rabban Gamliel.

HALAKHAH: Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was daytime. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was daytime. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish”. Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If he slaughtered it and wolves ate its intestines it is qualified, for the presumption of intestines is qualification. Should one not worry that maybe they were punctured? The presumption of intestines is that they are qualified. It was stated: But one may bring it on its hide. What does he do? He leaves one limb on it and brings it together with it.

“Washing”. Ze`urah bar Ḥama, Yose the son of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: On a public fast-day one washes as usual his face, hands, and feet. On the Ninth of Av one washes his hands and moves them over his face. On the day of Atonement one washes his hands, dries them with a towel, and moves the towel over his face. Rebbi Jonah moistened a rag and put it under the water pitcher. But did we not state that there is no difference between a public fast and the Ninth of Av except the prohibition of work at places where they were used to it? If somebody was going to his teacher, or to his daughter, and crossed a lake or a river he does not worry. If his feet were dirtied he immerses them in water and does not worry. Rebbi Abba instructed following this Tanna. Rebbi Aḥa instructed that one who comes from the road and his feet are dulled, he may wash them in water. It was stated: A mourner and one in the ban on a trip are permitted leather shoes. When they come to the town they shall take them off. The same applies to a public fast and the Ninth of Av.

“Washing”. Ze`urah bar Ḥama, Yose the son of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: On a public fast-day one washes as usual his face, hands, and feet. On the Ninth of Av one washes his hands and moves them over his face. On the day of Atonement one washes his hands, dries them with a towel, and moves the towel over his face. Rebbi Jonah moistened a rag and put it under the water pitcher. But did we not state that there is no difference between a public fast and the Ninth of Av except the prohibition of work at places where they were used to it? If somebody was going to his teacher, or to his daughter, and crossed a lake or a river he does not worry. If his feet were dirtied he immerses them in water and does not worry. Rebbi Abba instructed following this Tanna. Rebbi Aḥa instructed that one who comes from the road and his feet are dulled, he may wash them in water. It was stated: A mourner and one in the ban on a trip are permitted leather shoes. When they come to the town they shall take them off. The same applies to a public fast and the Ninth of Av.

One who is excommunicated by the teacher is excommunicated for the student; excommunicated by the student is not excommunicated for the teacher. One who is excommunicated by the chief judge is excommunicated for the rabbi; excommunicated by the rabbi is not excommunicated for the chief judge. One who is excommunicated by the patriarch is excommunicated for everybody. So far if an ordained rabbi excommunicated; even a fellow? Let us hear from the following: A slave woman of Bar Pata passed by a synagogue. She saw a Bible teacher who hit a child more than necessary. He said to him, this man has to be put in the ban. He went and asked Rebbi Aḥa who told him, you have to worry about yourself. This implies that a person who does something unbecoming needs to be excommunicated. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was looking after figs at Barbarit. Robbers came and stole from them during the night. At the end he noticed them. He said to them, these people shall be excommunicated. They said to him, this person shall be excommunicated. He was worried about himself. He said, they owe me money; maybe souls? He went out after them, said to them: permit me. They said to him, if you permit us we shall permit you. This implies that if somebody excommunicated somebody unnecessarily and he in turn excommunicated him, his excommunication is excommunication.

The woman who performs ḥalîṣah counts from the moment of death. The one who leaves by a bill of divorce counts from the moment of delivery of her bill. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the moment of delivery of her bill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the moment of writing. Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rebbi Ḥanina, Samuel like Rebbi Joḥanan. Samuel objected to Rav: According to you, since you say from the moment of delivery, about what are you suspicious? Because in the meantime she was alone with him! Then one should worry about an old bill of divorce! Rebbi Ḥanina objected to Rebbi Joḥanan: According to you, since you say from the moment of writing, if there were two bills of divorce, one written now and one later, and both delivered on the same day. This one you prohibit and that one you permit! What Rav objected to Samuel, Rebbi Ḥanina objected to Rebbi Joḥanan. What Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Ḥanina, Samuel objected to Rav. Practice: She counts from the time of writing if he never was alone with her.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef sent after his wife. He said, three students should accompany her, so that if one has to absent himself for his needs, she should still be with two of them. But did we not state: “And they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip”? Rebbi Abin said, with her husband that makes three. {Also he rented a house for her and looked after her upkeep but was never alone with her except in presence of her children. He applied to himself the verse: “I exercised myself in my worry but found no rest”.}

“And if the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not that there came witnesses declaring her impure. “If the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not one whose merit suspended [punishment] for her. This follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who said that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Rebbi Isaac said, here we deal with one who drank and the water did not test her. It comes to tell you that the water will not test a woman who is forbidden to her house. Rebbi Yudan said, this follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. Why was it not recognized? Because merit suspended for her. “The man will be free of sin,” he should not worry that maybe merit suspended for her. Should I think that she also should not worry? The verse said, “but that woman shall carry her sin”. [This interpretation] follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable.

“And if the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not that there came witnesses declaring her impure. “If the woman was not impure but was pure,” this refers to the one who is pure, not one whose merit suspended [punishment] for her. This follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who said that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Rebbi Isaac said, here we deal with one who drank and the water did not test her. It comes to tell you that the water will not test a woman who is forbidden to her house. Rebbi Yudan said, this follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. Why was it not recognized? Because merit suspended for her. “The man will be free of sin,” he should not worry that maybe merit suspended for her. Should I think that she also should not worry? The verse said, “but that woman shall carry her sin”. [This interpretation] follows the one who said that merit suspends and it is not recognizable.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare? Rebbi Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread) was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare? Rebbi Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread) was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare? Rebbi Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread) was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.

Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare? Rebbi Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose) in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread) was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.

“She went out with uncovered head.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, like those who went out on the Day of Atonement. If she went out with uncovered head, the witnesses testify that she had not been cohabitated with. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, a virgin after final marriage does not go out with uncovered head. Should one not worry that she had been injured by wood? That must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not worry about infrequent occurrences.

“She went out with uncovered head.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, like those who went out on the Day of Atonement. If she went out with uncovered head, the witnesses testify that she had not been cohabitated with. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, a virgin after final marriage does not go out with uncovered head. Should one not worry that she had been injured by wood? That must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not worry about infrequent occurrences.

“She went out with uncovered head.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, like those who went out on the Day of Atonement. If she went out with uncovered head, the witnesses testify that she had not been cohabitated with. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, a virgin after final marriage does not go out with uncovered head. Should one not worry that she had been injured by wood? That must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not worry about infrequent occurrences.

“Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof.” Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, for a virgin after final marriage one does not distribute roasted kernels. It was stated: Abba Shaul says, also if one brought before her an amphora of good news. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, in front of a virgin after final marriage one does not bring an amphora of good news.

“Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof.” Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, for a virgin after final marriage one does not distribute roasted kernels. It was stated: Abba Shaul says, also if one brought before her an amphora of good news. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, in front of a virgin after final marriage one does not bring an amphora of good news.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef sent after his wife. He said, three students should accompany her, so that if one has to absent himself for his needs, she should still be with two of them. But did we not state: “And they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip”? Rebbi Abin said, with her husband that makes three. Also he rented a house for her and looked after her upkeep but was never alone with her except in the presence of her children. He applied to himself the verse: “I exercised myself in my worry but found no rest”.

Should one not worry that he might be a slave? This supports what Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is forbidden for a man to teach Torah to his slave. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ira say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A slave is counted as one of the seven readers; wayedabber is counted as one of three verses! Explain it, if he learned it by himself or his master taught him like Tebi. Should one not worry that he might be a slave? This supports what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Women and slaves cannot share in the distribution on the threshing floor, but one gives them the gifts of priesthood and levitic status from the house.

Should one not worry that he might be a slave? This supports what Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is forbidden for a man to teach Torah to his slave. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ira say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: A slave is counted as one of the seven readers; wayedabber is counted as one of three verses! Explain it, if he learned it by himself or his master taught him like Tebi. Should one not worry that he might be a slave? This supports what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Women and slaves cannot share in the distribution on the threshing floor, but one gives them the gifts of priesthood and levitic status from the house.

“I came to her and did not find her a virgin.” Should we not worry that he found and made disappear? The husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery while in her father’s house. “This is proof of my daughters virginity.” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in this paragraph there are witnesses, witnesses of perjury, and witnesses of perjury of the witnesses of perjury: The husband says, these are witnesses that she whored in her father’s house. The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. And the husband brought witnesses to prove perjury of the father’s witnesses. Some Tannaïm state: “If this was true,” that the father found witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses.

“I came to her and did not find her a virgin.” Should we not worry that he found and made disappear? The husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery while in her father’s house. “This is proof of my daughters virginity.” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in this paragraph there are witnesses, witnesses of perjury, and witnesses of perjury of the witnesses of perjury: The husband says, these are witnesses that she whored in her father’s house. The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. And the husband brought witnesses to prove perjury of the father’s witnesses. Some Tannaïm state: “If this was true,” that the father found witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas,would you require him to say, it was written and signed before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was signed before me, is to make it easy for her at the end, that if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void; this means that there is no difference whether it is a protest not about the text of the bill or about the body of the bill, a protest which has no validity, or a protest which does have validity! But should you worry that maybe be gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign? Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

MISHNAH: If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account, he can proceed on the assumption that they are alive and does not worry whether the Cohen or Levite died or the poor person became rich. If they died, he has to receive permission from the heirs; if the loan was executed in court he does not need permission.

There is no “he does not worry,” since he has to worry lest the poor became rich. It was stated so: “If somebody lends money to a poor and rich person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost.”

There is no “he does not worry,” since he has to worry lest the poor became rich. It was stated so: “If somebody lends money to a poor and rich person he cannot separate for him, for one does not separate for what was lost.”