yom

“And sexual relations.” Come and see, he is forbidden to wash, not so much more to have sexual relations? Explain it that it was a place where one does not immerse oneself, or before Ezra instituted immersion for people having had an emission. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Qeri is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Ḥuna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, even from something else. But did we not state: On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual relations, are forbidden?. And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on the day of Atonement. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, 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 was stated: It happened that one saw Rebbi Yose bar Halaphta immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot?]

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 ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah says so. “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 Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this 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 that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun 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.

“And sexual relations.” Come and see, he is forbidden to wash, not so much more to have sexual relations? Explain it that it was a place where one does not immerse oneself, or before Ezra instituted immersion for people having had an emission. 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 say, even from something else. There, we did state: “On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual relations, are forbidden”? And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on the day of Atonement. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it was stated: It happened that one saw Rebbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot?

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of (Rebbi) <rav> Jeremiah, a private person has to mention the occasion on a public fast day. Where does he say it? Between “Redeemer of Israel” and “Healer of the sick.” What does he say? “Answer us, Eternal, answer us in this time and season because we are in great trouble, do not hide Your presence from us, do not be oblivious to our supplications, because You, Eternal, will answer in time of trouble, redeem and save in any time of distress. They cried to the Eternal in their trouble, He led them out from their distress. Praise to You, Eternal, Answering in times of trouble.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael in the name <of the house of rebbi yannai says: in “he who hears prayer.”The Fifteenth benediction, place of all personal additions to the weekday prayers. <Rebbi Jonah> in the name of (Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish) <rav>: Even an individual who decreed a fast day on himself has to mention the occasion. Where does he say it? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day. Rebbi Mana 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 baraita 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.”

May Ne`ilah free one from evening prayers? Rebbi Abba, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Ne`ilah 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 Ne`ilah does not free one from evening prayers. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi <joshua ben> Levi: Ne`ilah 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.”

HALAKHAH: Is hand-washing required for profane food? But it must follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, hand-washing is required for profane food. It is everybody’s opinion, so he should separate from heave. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follow Rebbi Aqiba, as we have stated there, “if somebody puts his hands into a leprous house, his hands are impure in the first degree, the words of Rebbi Aqiba, but the Sages are saying, his hands are impure in the second degree”? There, it follows the rabbis; what is their reason here? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave. But did they not decide about them because of fluids; then they should be impure in the first degree? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since the Tevul Yom, which is a word from the Torah, only disqualifies, impure hands, which are from their words, not so much more? Another explanation: Did they not decide about hands only that he should separate from heave? Since you tell him that his hands are impure in the second degree, he will separate from heave.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is from Rebbi Aqiba’s testimony. As we have stated there, “Rebbi Aqiba added that fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, part of which were touched by a Tevul Yom are all disqualified.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they knew that vessels of Servive do combine. About what comes he to testify? About the leftovers of flour-offerings that they do combine together. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Zamina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: they knew that vessels of Service do combine. About what comes he to testify? About fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals. One understands fine flour, and incense, and frankincense. Coals? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it about coals on the Day of Atonement which he has to carry inside in the vessel which he used to scoop up. But [not] about every day’s coals. As we have stated there, “If a qab of coals were dispersed, one sweeps them into the water canal, but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine-cooler. Rebbi Mattania said, do fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, need a minimum volume in this respect? Not because they have to be in their vessel? Here also because they have to be in their vessel.

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

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

It was stated: The following are forbidden to the mourner all Seven {days}: Washing, anointing, wearing shoes, sexual relations, grooming, washing clothes, reading in the Torah, studying Midrash, practices, and homiletics, greeting, and working. Who stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire Seven? Rebbi Nathan. Something happened to Rebbi Immi; he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all Seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose; he sent to Rebbi Abba bar Cohen who said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Immi, he asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who instructed him “all Seven following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him, maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. And also from the following: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama, father of Rav Hoshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it. Rebbi Yose asked, which rabbis? The rabbis here or the rabbis in the South? If you say the rabbis of here, it is fine. If you would say the rabbis from the South, would he have asked minor authorities when greater ones were available to him? If you say the rabbis of the South, we would allow and they would forbid, as we have stated: “At a place where it is customary to bathe after a funeral, one may bathe; in the South one bathes.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: He who permits that bath makes it like eating and drinking. That means, about a bath for pleasure. But a bath that is not for pleasure is permitted. Samuel bar Abba developed scab. They came and asked Rebbi Yasa, 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. They saw Rebbi Yose, son of Rebbi Ḥanina, immersing himself. They did not know whether it was for his emission, they did not know whether it was to cool down because bathing in cold water is not called bathing. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed following this statement.

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Even following Rebbi Aqiba. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave, so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile, and it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave but (permitted) [forbidden] to turn it into sacrificial food. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so? He said to him, because of the distinction. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction. Rebbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rebbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rebbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Even following Rebbi Aqiba. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave, so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile, and it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave but (permitted) [forbidden] to turn it into sacrificial food. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so? He said to him, because of the distinction. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction. Rebbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rebbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rebbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality?

There, they say, because Rebbi Joshua praised Rebbi Aqiba, it implies that practice follows his argument. The rabbis of Caesarea say, he praised him for his ingenuity, but in fact practice does not follow his argument, since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for tertiary [impurity] for tithes, even according to Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Hilai: Even according to Rebbi Aqiba one does not whip. Why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Since the ṭevul yom has no touch for profane food, also secondary impurity has no touch for profane food. Rebbi Eleazar said, as the count for profane food so is the count of tithes. This corresponds to what Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi, said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: We deal with somebody who ate profane food, and that Chapter deals with tithe. Rebbi Yose said, even its primary [impurity] is not clear. Not “I will not eat” is written, but “I did not eat.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, since it is written “following all Your commandments which You commanded me,” is it as if it were not clear?

There, they say, because Rebbi Joshua praised Rebbi Aqiba, it implies that practice follows his argument. The rabbis of Caesarea say, he praised him for his ingenuity, but in fact practice does not follow his argument, since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for tertiary [impurity] for tithes, even according to Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Hilai: Even according to Rebbi Aqiba one does not whip. Why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Since the ṭevul yom has no touch for profane food, also secondary impurity has no touch for profane food. Rebbi Eleazar said, as the count for profane food so is the count of tithes. This corresponds to what Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi, said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: We deal with somebody who ate profane food, and that Chapter deals with tithe. Rebbi Yose said, even its primary [impurity] is not clear. Not “I will not eat” is written, but “I did not eat.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, since it is written “following all Your commandments which You commanded me,” is it as if it were not clear?

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, from where that the fourth degree is disabled in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disabled for heave but disabled for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disable for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a ṭevul yom is a counterexample, because it is disabled in the case of heave but not disabled in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: “Any meat which would touch”, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; “anything impure”, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; “shall not be eaten”, the endstage of impurity cannot be eaten.

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

‘Honey’ alludes to the size of a large date, [which is the minimum size forbidden] on Yom Kippur.

The Master has said: ‘The homeborn’ excludes women. That is to say "homeborn" implies both men and women? But has it not been taught: "The homeborn" includes the homeborn women that they must afflict themselves [on Yom Kippur], which shows that [only] "homeborn" implies men [only]? Rabbah answered: They are traditions but the Rabbis applied a Scriptural verse to them.

As to Yom Kippur [also] it is derived from [the statement] of Rav Judah made in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav and so the school of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says, "Man or woman" (Numbers 5:6)

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

But one may not reduce them [the berries] on Yom Tov. But if he transgressed and did pluck them it is valid. But then, when did it become black? If you will say that it became black from the previous day, then it is a case of "set aside" from the very outset. Deduce from here that something that is "set aside" from the very outset is not [permanently] set aside?

When the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] would coincide with the eve of Shabbat, they postpone it. What is the reason? Because if the first day of the Festival of Sukkot were to fall on the eve of Shabbat, when would Yom Kippur be? On the [previous] Sunday. Therefore it is postponed.

But do we postpone it? Have we not in fact learned: The fats [of offerings performed on] Shabbat may be offered on Yom Kippur; And R. Zera stated:

When I was in the school of Rav in Babylon I used to say that which has been taught, "If Yom Kippur fell on the eve of Shabbat, they did not sound the trumpet, and if it fell at the conclusion of Shabbat they did not recite the Havdalah" is agreed to by all, but when I came up to Palestine I found R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi sitting and teaching that it was in agreement with R. Akiba only?

Mishanh. 1) A festival which fell next to Shabbat, either before or after it, all the watches shared equally in the distribution of the showbread. 2) If one day intervened between them [Shabbat and Yom Tov], the watch whose time of service was fixed [for that week] took ten [of the] loaves, while they that were detained took two. 3) On all other days of the year the incoming watch took six loaves and the outgoing watch six. a) Rabbi Judah said, the incoming watch took seven and the outgoing five.

Mishnah. There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur except that the deliberate violation of the one is punished by a human court and the deliberate violation of the other by karet.

Whose view does the Mishnah follow? That of R. Nehunia b. HaKaneh, as it has been taught: R. Nehunia b. HaKaneh used to make Yom Kippur the same as Shabbat in respect of compensation: just as [one who deliberately breaks] Shabbat forfeits his life but is exempt from compensation, so too [one who deliberately breaks] Yom Kippur forfeits his life but is exempt from compensation.

Whose view does the Mishnah follow? That of R. Nehunia b. HaKaneh, as it has been taught: R. Nehunia b. HaKaneh used to make Yom Kippur the same as Shabbat in respect of compensation: just as [one who deliberately breaks] Shabbat forfeits his life but is exempt from compensation, so too [one who deliberately breaks] Yom Kippur forfeits his life but is exempt from compensation.

Rava said: They said in the school of Rav: We have [also] learned [this]: There is no difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat except that he who breaks the one deliberately is punished by a human court, while he who breaks the other deliberately is punished with karet. Now if [R. Hananiah’s opinion] is correct, then both are punished by the human court?

There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah.

GEMARA. [Between the priest anointed etc.]. Behold in matter of the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah they are on the same footing.

How have you explained [the Mishnah]? As not agreeing with R. Meir. What about the end of the mishnah: There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah. But we can infer that in all other matters they are the same; and so we come to the view of R. Meir, as it has been taught, If something happened to disqualify him and they appointed another priest to take his place, when the first returns to his service the second is still liable to all the obligations of the high priesthood, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said: The first returns to his service whereas the second is not qualified to act as a high priest or as an ordinary priest.

for the confession over the tithe; for the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim; for laying on of hands;

And for the confession made over the oxen. For the “atonement” mentioned here is derived from the “atonement” mentioned in the context of Yom Kippur, as it has been taught in reference to Yom Kippur: “And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6) the text speaks of atonement made by words. And atonement is by day, as it is written, “For on this day shall atonement be made for you” (Leviticus 16:30).

And for the confession made over the oxen. For the “atonement” mentioned here is derived from the “atonement” mentioned in the context of Yom Kippur, as it has been taught in reference to Yom Kippur: “And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6) the text speaks of atonement made by words. And atonement is by day, as it is written, “For on this day shall atonement be made for you” (Leviticus 16:30).

This is the general rule: on any day which has a musaf and is not a festival four read. On a festival five. On Yom Hakippurim six. On Shabbat seven; they may not decrease [from this number] but they may add [to it], and they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.

Therefore on Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival, when there is an additional sacrifice, four read; on festivals (Yom Tov), when [in addition] work is prohibited, five read; on Yom Kippur when [in addition] there is a penalty of karet, six read; on Shabbat when there is a penalty of stoning, seven read.

Therefore on Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival, when there is an additional sacrifice, four read; on festivals (Yom Tov), when [in addition] work is prohibited, five read; on Yom Kippur when [in addition] there is a penalty of karet, six read; on Shabbat when there is a penalty of stoning, seven read.

On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six etc. Whose view is that of the Mishnah? It is neither R. Ishmael nor R. Akiba, as it has been taught: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six, and on Shabbat seven. They may not decrease or increase this number, the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiva says: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur seven and on Shabbat six. They may not decrease this number, but they may increase it.

On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six etc. Whose view is that of the Mishnah? It is neither R. Ishmael nor R. Akiba, as it has been taught: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six, and on Shabbat seven. They may not decrease or increase this number, the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiva says: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur seven and on Shabbat six. They may not decrease this number, but they may increase it.

On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six etc. Whose view is that of the Mishnah? It is neither R. Ishmael nor R. Akiba, as it has been taught: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six, and on Shabbat seven. They may not decrease or increase this number, the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiva says: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur seven and on Shabbat six. They may not decrease this number, but they may increase it.

Rava said: It follows the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael, for in the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: On festivals five, on Yom Kippur six, on Shabbat seven, they may not add to decrease this number but they may increase it, the words of R. Ishmael.

Who taught the following which has been taught: On festivals people come late to synagogue and leave early. On Yom Kippur they come early and leave late. On Sabbath they come early and leave early? Shall I say it is R. Akiva who makes an extra man [read on Yom Kippur]? You may also say it is R. Ishmael, [his reason being that] the order [of the service] of the day is very long.

Who taught the following which has been taught: On festivals people come late to synagogue and leave early. On Yom Kippur they come early and leave late. On Sabbath they come early and leave early? Shall I say it is R. Akiva who makes an extra man [read on Yom Kippur]? You may also say it is R. Ishmael, [his reason being that] the order [of the service] of the day is very long.

Jacob the Min asked R. Judah: What do the six of Yom Kippur represent? He replied: The six who stood at the right of Ezra and the six who stood at his left, as it says, "And Ezra the scribe stood on a stand of wood which they had made for the purpose, and beside him stood Matatyah, Shema and Aniaah and Uriah and Hilkiah and Maasiyah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael and Malchiyah and Hashum and Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, Meshullam" (Nehemiah 8:14).

They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. They raised contradiction [between this and the following]: He [the High Priest] reads [on Yom Kippur] “After the death” (Leviticus 16) and “Only on the tenth day” (Leviticus 23:26-32). But he is skipping?

They interrupt [the regular order] for anything: for Rosh Hodesh, for Hanukkah, for Purim, for fasts, for Ma’amadot, and for Yom HaKippurim

Jeremiah said: The opinion of R. Ammi is the more reasonable, as it was taught: the regular reading is interrupted for any special occasion: for Rosh Hodesh, for Hanukkah, for Purim, for fasts, for ma’amadot and for Yom Kippur.

On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat Kohanim) (Leviticus 23:4). On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23). On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.

On Yom Kippur we read “After the death” (Leviticus 16) and for haftarah, “For thus said the high and lofty one” (Isaiah 57:14-58) At minhah we read the section of forbidden sexual relationships (Leviticus 18:1-30) and for haftarah the book of Jonah.

Or one who slaughtered and brought up an animal outside [the Temple]. One who ate chometz on Pesach, one who ate or did work on Yom Kippur, One who replicated the anointing oil, one who replicated the ketoras, one who anointed himself with the anointing oil, one who ate carcasses, treif animals, insects, or reptiles.

Ullah asked Rav Nachman, Let him also incur malkus for planting on a Yom Tov [festival]. Rav Nachman answered him, The tanna teaches some and leaves outs some.

Ullah asked him, The Tanna says "eight", and you will say that he teaches some and leaves outs some!? Rava answered, There is a separation of forbidden labors with regards to Shabbos, but there is no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov. Ullah said, that will suffice.

Abaye asked, And is there really no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov? But it was taught in a Mishna, One who cooks a Gid Hanasha [sciatic nerve] in milk on Yom Tov and subsequently eats it incurs five sets of malkus. [1]He incurs malkus for eating the Gid Hanasha. [2]He incurs malkus for cooking on Yom Tov without need. [3]He incurs malkus for cooking a sinew in milk. [4]He incurs malkus for consuming meat with milk. And [5]He incurs malkus

Abaye asked, And is there really no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov? But it was taught in a Mishna, One who cooks a Gid Hanasha [sciatic nerve] in milk on Yom Tov and subsequently eats it incurs five sets of malkus. [1]He incurs malkus for eating the Gid Hanasha. [2]He incurs malkus for cooking on Yom Tov without need. [3]He incurs malkus for cooking a sinew in milk. [4]He incurs malkus for consuming meat with milk. And [5]He incurs malkus

Abaye asked, And is there really no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov? But it was taught in a Mishna, One who cooks a Gid Hanasha [sciatic nerve] in milk on Yom Tov and subsequently eats it incurs five sets of malkus. [1]He incurs malkus for eating the Gid Hanasha. [2]He incurs malkus for cooking on Yom Tov without need. [3]He incurs malkus for cooking a sinew in milk. [4]He incurs malkus for consuming meat with milk. And [5]He incurs malkus

for lighting the fire. And if this is true [that there is no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov], then he should not be liable for lighting fire since he is already liable on the cooking!-?- Take out lighting and insert Gid Hanashe of a carcass.

Rebbi Zeira asked to Rebbi Mani But let's also consider one who made a vow not to plow on Yom Tov? [Rebbi Mani answered,] There, the vow does not go into effect because it stands against what was sworn at Mount Sinai. [Rebbi Zeira] said to him, How about if he swore to not plow whether on a weekday or on Yom Tov, that since the oath takes effect on weekday, it also takes effect on YomTov? The mishna does not teach things that are subject to annulment.

Rebbi Zeira asked to Rebbi Mani But let's also consider one who made a vow not to plow on Yom Tov? [Rebbi Mani answered,] There, the vow does not go into effect because it stands against what was sworn at Mount Sinai. [Rebbi Zeira] said to him, How about if he swore to not plow whether on a weekday or on Yom Tov, that since the oath takes effect on weekday, it also takes effect on YomTov? The mishna does not teach things that are subject to annulment.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yochanon says, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel's colleagues disputed what he had said. Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of the school of Rav, "We learned in a Mishna, there is no difference between Shabbos and Yom Kippur besides for that one is punishable by man and one is punishable with kares" Now if this is true [that malkus works in place of kares] then both are punishable by man?