yom

There are three periods [lit. threshing floors] for the tithe of cattle: in the peras of Pesah, in the peras of Atzeret (Shavuot) and in the peras of the Feast [of Sukkot], the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. And why did they say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei? Because it is a Yom Tov and you cannot tithe on a Yom Tov. Consequently they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul. Rabbi Meir says: the first of Elul is the New Year for the tithe of cattle. Ben Azzai says: those born in Elul are tithed by themselves.

There are three periods [lit. threshing floors] for the tithe of cattle: in the peras of Pesah, in the peras of Atzeret (Shavuot) and in the peras of the Feast [of Sukkot], the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. And why did they say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei? Because it is a Yom Tov and you cannot tithe on a Yom Tov. Consequently they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul. Rabbi Meir says: the first of Elul is the New Year for the tithe of cattle. Ben Azzai says: those born in Elul are tithed by themselves.

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.

There are in the Torah thirty-six [transgressions which are punishable with] karet: When one has intercourse with his mother, His father's wife; Or his daughter-in-law; When a man has intercourse with a male, Or with a beast, Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself; When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter; Or with a married woman; Or with his sister; Or with his father's sister; Or his mother's sister; Or his wife's sister; Or his brother's wife; Or the wife of his father's brother; Or with a menstruating woman; One who blasphemes [the Lord]; One who worships idols; Or dedicates his children to Molech; Or has a ba’al ov; Or desecrates the Shabbat; When an unclean person eats of sacred food; Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state; When one eats forbidden fat, Or blood; Notar; Or piggul; When one slaughters Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple]; One who eats anything leavened on Pesah; One who eats Or works on Yom Kippur; One who compounds the oil [of anointing]; Or compounds incense; Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing; And [when one transgresses the laws of] the pesah, And circumcision from among positive commandments.

It is possible that by one act of eating a person could become liable to four hatats and one asham: If an unclean person eats forbidden fat, which was at the same time notar of an offering, and [it was on] Yom Kippur. Rabbi Meir says: if it was on Shabbat and he carried it out, he is liable [to yet another hatat]. But they said to him: this is a different name.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Rabbi Eliezer says: one may freely offer an asham talui every day and at any time he pleases and such a sacrifice is called the asham of the pious. They said of Bava ben Buti that he used to freely offer an asham talui every day, except on the day after Yom Kippur. He declared: By this temple! Had they allowed me, I would have offered one even then, but they said to me, wait until you have come to a state of doubt.” But the sages say one may not bring an asham talui except for a sin that [is punished by] karet [when done intentionally and for which one brings a hatat [when done unwittingly.

Those that are liable to hatats or to certain ashams and Yom Kippur passes over them, are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. Those that are liable to asham talui’s are exempt. He who has committed a doubtful sin on Yom Kippur, even at twilight, is exempt, because the whole of the day effects atonement.

Those that are liable to hatats or to certain ashams and Yom Kippur passes over them, are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. Those that are liable to asham talui’s are exempt. He who has committed a doubtful sin on Yom Kippur, even at twilight, is exempt, because the whole of the day effects atonement.

Those that are liable to hatats or to certain ashams and Yom Kippur passes over them, are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. Those that are liable to asham talui’s are exempt. He who has committed a doubtful sin on Yom Kippur, even at twilight, is exempt, because the whole of the day effects atonement.

If a woman is liable to a bird hatat brought in a case of doubt and Yom Kippur intervenes, she is still bound to offer it after Yom Kippur, because it renders her fit to eat sacrifices. If a hatat of a bird was brought for a matter of doubt and, after the pinching of its neck it became known [that there was no need for it], it must be buried.

If a woman is liable to a bird hatat brought in a case of doubt and Yom Kippur intervenes, she is still bound to offer it after Yom Kippur, because it renders her fit to eat sacrifices. If a hatat of a bird was brought for a matter of doubt and, after the pinching of its neck it became known [that there was no need for it], it must be buried.

The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat of a bird from the moment of its dedication. With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, but the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.

The law of sacrilege applies to the olah of a bird from the moment of its dedication. With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been squeezed out [onto the walls of the altar] it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement; And the law of sacrilege applies to it until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the bullocks which are to be burned and the goats which are to be burned from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement. And the law of sacrilege applies to them even while they are at the place of the ashes so long as the flesh has not been charred.

The law of sacrilege applies to an olah from the moment of its dedication. When it is slaughtered it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement; And the law of sacrilege does not apply to its hide, but it does apply to it flesh until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat, and asham and to shelamim sacrifices of the congregation from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement. The law of sacrilege then no longer applies to the flesh, but applies to the innards until the ashes are removed to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the two loaves of bread from the moment of their dedication. Once they have formed a crust in the oven they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and the [festival] offerings can then be slaughtered. Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled they [the loaves] are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to them.

The law of sacrilege applies to the showbread from the moment of its dedication. Once it has formed a crust in the oven it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and it may be arranged upon the table [of the Sanctuary]. Once the dishes of incense have been offered it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.

The law of sacrilege applies to menahot (grain offerings) from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel [of service] they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once the handful has been offered they are subject to [the law of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to the remnants, but it applies to the handful until its ashes have been removed to the place of the ashes.

The law of sacrilege applies to the handful [of a minhah], the frankincense, the incense, the minhah of a priest, the minhah of the anointed high priest and the minhah that is accompanied by a libation, from the moment of their dedication. Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel, they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight, and they are subject to [the laws of] notar and defilement, but [the law of] piggul does not apply to them. This is the general rule: whatever has something else which renders it permissible [for the altar or for the use of the priests] is not subject to [the laws of] piggul, nothar and defilement until that act has been performed. And whatever does not have something else which renders it permissible becomes subject [to the laws of] notar and defilement as soon as it has become sacred by being put in the vessel, but piggul does not apply to it.

All kinds of food can combine with one another: To make up the quantity of half a peras in order to render the body unfit [To make up the food] for two meals to form an eruv; To make up the volume of an egg to contaminate food; To make up the volume of a dry fig with regard to carrying on Shabbat; And the volume of a date with regard to Yom Kippur. All kinds of drinks can combine with one another: To make up a quarter [of a log] in order to render the body unfit; To make up a mouthful with regard to Yom Kippur.

All kinds of food can combine with one another: To make up the quantity of half a peras in order to render the body unfit [To make up the food] for two meals to form an eruv; To make up the volume of an egg to contaminate food; To make up the volume of a dry fig with regard to carrying on Shabbat; And the volume of a date with regard to Yom Kippur. All kinds of drinks can combine with one another: To make up a quarter [of a log] in order to render the body unfit; To make up a mouthful with regard to Yom Kippur.

From Jericho they could hear the sound of the great gate being opened. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the magrephah. From Jericho they could hear the noise of the wooden pulley which Ben Katin made for the laver. From Jericho they could hear the voice of Gevini the herald. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the pipes. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the cymbals. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the singing [of the Levites]. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the shofar. Some say also of the high priest when he pronounced the divine name on Yom Kippur. From Jericho they could smell the odor of the compounding of incense. Rabbi Elazar ben Diglai said: my father had some goats in Har Michvar, and they would sneeze from the smell of the incense.

There were six chambers in the courtyard, three on the north and three on the south. On the north were the salt chamber, the parvah chamber and the washer's chamber. In the salt chamber they used to keep the salt for the offerings. In the parvah chamber they used to salt the skins of the animal-offerings. On its roof was the bath used by the high priest on Yom Kippur. In the washers’ chamber they used to wash the entrails of the sacrificial animals, and from it a winding way went up to the roof of the parvah chamber.

There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person: A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A "proper quantity of flesh" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.

The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving.

The area between the porch (ulam) and the altar is holier, for [priests] who have blemishes or unkempt hair may not enter it. The Hekhal is holier, for no one whose hands or feet are unwashed may enter it. The Holy of Holies is holier, for only the high priest, on Yom Kippur, at the time of the service, may enter it. Rabbi Yose said: in five respects the area between the porch and the altar is equal to the Hekhal, for those afflicted with blemishes or with a wild growth of hair, or who have drunk wine or whose hands or feet are unwashed may not enter there, and the people must keep away from the area between the porch and the altar when the incense is being burned.

Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures were measured with the Italian standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness. Sometimes they stated a measure that varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who takes both hands full of incense, One who drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals for an eruv, The quantity being the food one eats on weekdays and not on Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: as on Shabbat and not as on weekdays. And both intended to give the more lenient ruling. Rabbi Shimon says: two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made of a kav. Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pundium when the price of wheat is four se'ah for a sela’.

And sometimes they stated a large measure: A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke.

On the seventh day he shaves off his hair a second time in the manner of the first shaving, he washes his garments and immerses himself. He is clean in so far as not to convey uncleanness as a sheretz, but he was still like a tevul yom. He may eat second tithe. After sunset he may eat terumah. After he had brought his offering of atonement, he may also eat sacred things. Thus there are three grades in the purification of a metzora and three grades in the purification of a woman after child birth.

Seven days before the burning of the [red] cow they would separate the priest who was to burn the cow from his house to a chamber that was facing the north-eastern corner of the birah, and which was called the Stone Chamber. They would sprinkle upon him throughout the seven days with [a mixture of] all the sin-offerings that were there. Rabbi Yose said: they sprinkled upon him only on the third and the seventh days. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests said: on the priest that was to burn the cow they sprinkled all the seven days, but on the one that was to perform the service on Yom Kippur they sprinkled on the third and the seventh days only.

Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom. Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."

A woman who was preserving vegetables in a pot and touched a leaf outside the pot on a dry spot, even though the leaf had an egg's bulk of volume, it alone becomes unclean while all the rest remains clean. If she touched it at a wet spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean. If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. If it is returned into the pot, everything becomes unclean. If the woman was unclean due to contact with one who had corpse uncleanness, and she touched the leaf either at a wet spot or at a dry spot: If there was an egg's bulk in the leaf, everything becomes unclean; If there was not an egg's bulk in it, it alone becomes unclean but all the rest remains clean. If a woman who was a tevulat yom emptied out the pot with unwashed hands, and she observed some liquid on her hands, and it is uncertain whether it was splashed from the pot or whether a stalk had touched her hands, the vegetables are invalid but the pot remains clean.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

If one had collected hallah [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. Pieces of dough [of terumah] that had become stuck together, Or loaves that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of rice): Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected. They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.

If one had collected pieces of hallah without the intention of separating them afterwards, or a batter-cake that had been baked on another after a crust had formed in the oven, or froth had appeared in the water prior to its bubbling up, or the second scum that appeared in the boiling of groats of beans, or the scum of old wine, or that of oil of all kinds, or of lentils, Rabbi Judah says: also that of beans; All these are defiled when touched by a tevul yom. And there is no need to say, [this is the case if touched] by other sources of uncleanness.

The nail shaped knob on the back of the loaf, or the small globule of salt, or the burnt crust less than a finger's breadth: Rabbi Yose says: whatever is eaten with the loaf becomes unclean [when touched by the tevul yom]. And one doesn't need to say, this is so [when touched] by other unclean things.

A pebble in a loaf or a large globule of salt, or a lupine, or a burnt crust larger than a finger's breadth Rabbi Yose says: whatever is not eaten with the loaf remains clean even when touched by a father of impurity; And it isn't even necessary to say [is this so when touched] by a tevul yom.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, silphium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity. Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.

Liquids that come out of a tevul yom are like those which he has touched: neither of them causes defilement. With regard to all others that are unclean, be they of minor or major [degree], the liquids that come out of them are like those they touch; both have first degree impurity. Except for liquid that is a "father of impurity."

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.

If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing; But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched. If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered. [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.

If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing; But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched. If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered. [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.

If the porridge and batter-cake were of hullin and oil of terumah was floating above them, and a tevul yom touched the oil, he disqualifies only the oil. If he stirred it altogether, all the places where the oil goes are disqualified.

Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other. Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread. Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted. If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.

Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other. Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread. Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted. If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.

A jug which sunk into a cistern containing wine, and a tevul yom touched it: If [he touched it] from the rim and inwards, it serves as a connective; If from the rim and outwards, it does not serve as a connective. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even though [the level of wine in the cistern] is the height of a man [above the sunken jar], and he touched [the wine] directly above the mouth of the jar, it serves as a connective.

If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean. If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one.

If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean. If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one.

Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.

If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer. But if it was arranged like a cap it does not serve as a connective.

The streak of an egg that had become congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touched it: If within the rim [of the pan] it serves as a connective; But if outside the rim, it does not serve as a connective. Rabbi Yose says that the streak and the part that can be peeled away with it [serves as a connective]. The same applies to beans that had congealed on the rim of the pot.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness. If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.

If food that was tithe had been rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, and a tevul yom or one with unwashed hands touched it, terumah of tithe may still be removed from it in purity, since it only has third degree uncleanness, and third degree uncleanness counts as clean in hullin.

A woman who is a tevulat yom may knead dough, cut off the hallah, and set it apart, and she should arrange it on an Egyptian basket, or on a tray, and then bring it near and call it by its name. For it [the dough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin.

A trough which is a tevulat yom, one may knead dough in it and cut off the portion for hallah and bring it near and call it by name [as hallah]; for it [the trough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin.

A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken: If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe. But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing. If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.

These are the benedictions that one makes long: the benedictions for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and the benedictions for a public fast day. From his benedictions one can tell whether someone is a scholar or is uneducated. These are the benedictions that one makes short: He who makes a benediction over a commandment and on fruits, the introductory paragraph of Grace, and the last benediction in Grace after the meal. Hence, all other benedictions one should make long. Ḥizqiah said: From what we have stated: He who makes it long is despicable, he who makes is short is praiseworthy, which means that this is not a principle. We have stated: One has to make long the benediction “Who saves Israel” on a fast day. Hence, the six additional benedictions he should not make long. Rebbi Yose said: You should not say: because this is part of Shemoneh Esreh one should not make it long, therefore it is necessary to say: One has to make long the benediction “Who saves Israel” on a fast day.

That means, about a bath for pleasure. But a bath that is not for pleasure is permitted. An example is the case of Samuel bar Abba who developed scab. They came and asked Rebbi Yose, what is the rule, may he bathe? He said to them: If he does not bathe, would he not die? If he needs it, even on the Ninth of Av. If he needs it, even on Yom Kippur.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Qeri is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Huna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say, even from something else. There (Mishnah Yoma 8:1) we have stated: Eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual intercourse are forbidden on Yom Kippur. And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on Yom Kippur. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, qeri is only from sexual intercourse? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it is stated: It happened that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta was seen immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Qeri is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Huna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say, even from something else. There (Mishnah Yoma 8:1) we have stated: Eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual intercourse are forbidden on Yom Kippur. And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on Yom Kippur. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, qeri is only from sexual intercourse? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it is stated: It happened that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta was seen immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Qeri is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Huna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say, even from something else. There (Mishnah Yoma 8:1) we have stated: Eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual intercourse are forbidden on Yom Kippur. And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on Yom Kippur. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, qeri is only from sexual intercourse? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it is stated: It happened that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta was seen immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot?

When is Neïlah? The rabbis of Caesarea say: Rav and Rebbi Yoḥanan disagree. Rav said, when the gates of Heaven are locked. And Rebbi Yoḥanan said, when the gates of the Temple are locked. Rebbi Yudan Antordaya said: A Mishnah supports Rebbi Yoḥanan (Taäniot 4:1): “On three occasions do the Cohanim lift their hands four times in one day, mornings, Musaph, Minḥah, and at the locking of the gates: on fastdays, at support services, and on Yom Kippur. May you say that the gates of heaven are locked while it is still daytime?

May Neïlah free one from evening prayers? Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Neïlah frees one from evening prayers. Rebbi Abba said to Rav Ḥuna: How may he mention havdalah? Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Abba: How may seven free one from eighteen? He said to him, did I not already contradict it? He said to him: Because you contradicted it, should it be abandoned? Rebbi Yose said, what Rebbi Abba asked is truly difficult. What Rebbi Jonah asked is not at all difficult, they made it easy on people because of the fast, that seven should free one from eighteen. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said to his colleagues: From all of them I understand that Neïlah does not free one from evening prayers. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Neïlah does not free one from evening prayers. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state this: “Every day one prays eighteen benedictions, including the end of Sabbath, end of Yom Kippur, and end of public fast days.”

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If Yom Kippur happens to be on the Sabbath, one mentions Sabbath in Neïlah even though there is no Neïlah for Sabbath. They added to it: If the New Moon happens to be on a public fast-day, one mentions the New Moon in Neïlah even though there is no Neïlah for the New Moon. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: On a Sabbath that falls on Ḥanukkah, one mentions Ḥanukkah for Musaph even though there is no Musaph for Ḥanukkah. They added to it the New Moon that happens to be in it, one mentions Ḥanukkah for Musaph even though there is no Musaph for Ḥanukkah.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Where does he say it? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day. Rebbi Mani said: I, who did not check whether one follows Rav Jeremiah or Rebbi Yannai the son of Rebbi Ismael, went to the study hall and I heard: “Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Rebbi Yose objected that a baraitha disagrees: Every day one prays eighteen benedictions, including the night after Sabbath and the nights after Yom Kippur and after Public Fasts.” Since Rebbi Yose said, this baraita disagrees, it contradicts the statement: between “Redeemer of Israel” and “Healer of the sick.”

Rav Huna in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: At the end of Yom Kippur one also recites the benediction since the light had rested all that day long.

There, we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom. Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel.

There, we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom. Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel.

There, we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom. Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai understood it from the following: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment for Cohanim.

It was stated: One does not use the complement of heave for payment of principal and fifth and for them one does not pay principal and fifth, it is not subject to ḥallah, and hands and the ṭevul yom do not make it unusable in the way they do not make profane unusable. Even Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Yose agree with this.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “That it should not become unusable.” What is “become unusable”? Rebbi Jonah said, it becomes unusable through a ṭevul-yom. You cannot eat it, for he is impure by the word of the Torah; you cannot for he is pure by the word of the Torah. That means, that it should not become unusable.

What means “he would restrict its edibility”? Heave is forbidden to outsiders, Second Tithe is permitted to outsiders. Heave is forbidden to a ṭevul-yom, Second Tithe is permitted to a ṭevul-yom. And just as he would restrict its edibility, so he would restrict her edibility. Heave is permitted to the deep mourner, Second Tithe is forbidden to the deep mourner. Heave does not need an enclosure, Second Tithe needs an enclosure. It was found stated: “Because he would restrict its edibility and her edibility”.

What means “he would restrict its edibility”? Heave is forbidden to outsiders, Second Tithe is permitted to outsiders. Heave is forbidden to a ṭevul-yom, Second Tithe is permitted to a ṭevul-yom. And just as he would restrict its edibility, so he would restrict her edibility. Heave is permitted to the deep mourner, Second Tithe is forbidden to the deep mourner. Heave does not need an enclosure, Second Tithe needs an enclosure. It was found stated: “Because he would restrict its edibility and her edibility”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

This means that biting is biblical. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten.

This means that biting is biblical. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten.

This means that biting is biblical. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, [others] for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is no connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah. The Land of Israel up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure, the one for the Cohen has no measure. From Euphrates or Amanus inside, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion. But it is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux, and to women during menstruation or after childbirth. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem-dedications, firstlings, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son, the redemption value of a firstling donkey, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits. Heave vetch Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

It was stated, eighteen things they decided, in eighteen they were a majority and in eighteen they were divided. The following they decided: About Gentiles’ bread, and about their cheeses, and about their oil, and about their daughters, and about their semen, and about their urine, and about the rules of a person with an emission, and about the rules of the land of Gentiles. There we have stated: “The following make heave unusable. One who eats food impure in the first degree, and one who eats food impure in the second degree, and one who drinks impure drinks, and one who comes with his head and most of his body in drawn water, and a pure person on whose head and most of his body fell three log drawn water, and a scroll, and hands, and the Ṭevul yom, and food and vessels which became impure by fluids.”

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba added and said, the Cohanim never refrained from burning oil which became disqualified by a ṭevul-yom in a lamp impure by the impurity of the dead even though they added impurity to it.

HALAKHAH: 7: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.