yose

Rebbi Eleazar said, a person can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “If a vessel was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave [of the tithe] tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that. What is to be done? “From before I shall separate it.” Think about it, if it was pure heave, “from before I shall eat it.” Think about it, if it was impure heave, “from before I shall deposit it in a corner.”

Rebbi Eleazar said, a person can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on a Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “If a vessel was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave [of the tithe] tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that. What is to be done? “From before I shall separate it.” Think about it, if it was pure heave, “from before I shall eat it.” Think about it, if it was impure heave, “from before I shall deposit it in a corner.”

Rebbi Zeˋira said, this only follows Rebbi Ḥanina, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, we were ascending with Rebbi to the Hot Springs of Gadara when he said to us, choose smooth stones for yourselves; then you are permitted to move them tomorrow. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference here because it is like a chair.

MISHNAH: One does not use midwifery for animals on a holiday but one helps. One helps a woman in childbirth on the Sabbath, and calls a midwife for her from place to place, and desecrates the Sabbath for her, and ties the umbilical cord; Rebbi Yose says, also one cuts it. All that is necessary for circumcision one does on the Sabbath.

“And ties the umbilical cord.” As in the following: The slave girl of Bar Qappara expected to give birth on a Sabbath. She came and asked her master, who told her to go and ask the midwife. She said, there is no midwife. He said, go and follow your usage; she said, there is no usage. He said, go and cut it. This is like Rebbi Yose.

They asked before Rebbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

They asked before Rebbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

They asked before Rebbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

They asked before Rebbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Our Mishnah implies that it is forbidden to make walls of people, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement before the Sabbath he brings it openly on the Sabbath.” For if you are saying that one may make, could he not find it possible to make and bring it?

It was stated: “A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew since he circumcises in the name of Mount Gerizim, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, where do we find that circumcision needs intent? Let him continue to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim until he dies!”

“The drawn should not circumcise lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised convert. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised; because that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Since we have stated that it is a compressed prepuce, it is implied that he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A son was born to Rav Ada bar Ahava in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, testicles became injured and he fasted for him; he died. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him; he died.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “One washes the baby.” It was stated in the House of Rebbi: “One washes the circumcision.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who says, “one washes the baby”. Rebbi Yose said, you are forced to say, one washes the baby. Samuel stated, one never withholds either oil or warm water from a wound on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yose said, my teacher Rebbi Zeˋira always was coming to say to me, state in your Mishnah, not only this but one sprinkles warm water on a wound on the Sabbath. If you are saying, “one washes the circumcision”, what is the difference between an adult and a baby?

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “One washes the baby.” It was stated in the House of Rebbi: “One washes the circumcision.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who says, “one washes the baby”. Rebbi Yose said, you are forced to say, one washes the baby. Samuel stated, one never withholds either oil or warm water from a wound on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yose said, my teacher Rebbi Zeˋira always was coming to say to me, state in your Mishnah, not only this but one sprinkles warm water on a wound on the Sabbath. If you are saying, “one washes the circumcision”, what is the difference between an adult and a baby?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: it was on the third day when they hurt. It does not say, “when it hurt”, but when they hurt, at a time when all their limbs hurt them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan ordered for the women having newborns, that all treatments which you give to a sick person on the Sabbath should be given if the third day falls on a Sabbath. Samuel said, because of the danger. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is because of the danger one heats hot water for him! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: One heats hot water for him. And it was stated thus: A person heats a linen cloth and puts it on his belly on the Sabbath. A person may not take a bottle full of hot water and put it on his belly on the Sabbath. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, on the contrary it is permitted.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: it was on the third day when they hurt. It does not say, “when it hurt”, but when they hurt, at a time when all their limbs hurt them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan ordered for the women having newborns, that all treatments which you give to a sick person on the Sabbath should be given if the third day falls on a Sabbath. Samuel said, because of the danger. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is because of the danger one heats hot water for him! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: One heats hot water for him. And it was stated thus: A person heats a linen cloth and puts it on his belly on the Sabbath. A person may not take a bottle full of hot water and put it on his belly on the Sabbath. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, on the contrary it is permitted.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

HALAKHAH: “If one had two children,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these [“children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not] specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

If he finished he can return only for fibers which would invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we stated there: “Rebbi Yose says, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, if he forgot and took the lulav out into the public domain he is not liable because he took it out with permission.” Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread]? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision, this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread].

If he finished he can return only for fibers which would invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we stated there: “Rebbi Yose says, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, if he forgot and took the lulav out into the public domain he is not liable because he took it out with permission.” Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread]? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision, this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread].

If he finished he can return only for fibers which would invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we stated there: “Rebbi Yose says, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, if he forgot and took the lulav out into the public domain he is not liable because he took it out with permission.” Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread]? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision, this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread].

If he finished he can return only for fibers which would invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we stated there: “Rebbi Yose says, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, if he forgot and took the lulav out into the public domain he is not liable because he took it out with permission.” Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread]? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision, this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread].

HALAKHAH: “The following are the fibers which invalidate a circumcision.” Rebbi Avuna in the name of Rav Jeremiah: If it covers most of the height of the corona. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if it covers most of the top of the corona. Rebbi Tebi in the name of Samuel: One checks at the time of an erection.

“If he circumcised but did not uncover the circumcision it is as if he did not circumcise.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left [in the day] to correct it. But if there is time left [in the day] to correct, he corrects without hesitation. It was stated: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we had stated there: “Rebbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot [that it was the Sabbath] and took the palm branch into the public domain he is not liable since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah.

“If he circumcised but did not uncover the circumcision it is as if he did not circumcise.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left [in the day] to correct it. But if there is time left [in the day] to correct, he corrects without hesitation. It was stated: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we had stated there: “Rebbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot [that it was the Sabbath] and took the palm branch into the public domain he is not liable since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah.

“If he circumcised but did not uncover the circumcision it is as if he did not circumcise.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left [in the day] to correct it. But if there is time left [in the day] to correct, he corrects without hesitation. It was stated: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we had stated there: “Rebbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot [that it was the Sabbath] and took the palm branch into the public domain he is not liable since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah.

“If he circumcised but did not uncover the circumcision it is as if he did not circumcise.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left [in the day] to correct it. But if there is time left [in the day] to correct, he corrects without hesitation. It was stated: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we had stated there: “Rebbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot [that it was the Sabbath] and took the palm branch into the public domain he is not liable since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah.

The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. Since there, where he qualifies it as an implement, you say that it is permitted, here, where he does not qualify it as an implement, not so much more? Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Also they permitted preparations for making food. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: Following him who permits, only from above. As the following: In the days of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi there was a festive meal in the House of Study. They spread a canopy the day before over four cubits; the next day they were extending it over everything. They were of the opinion that this followed the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi. They investigated and found that it was not according to Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s opinion unless it was spread over most of it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who sets up tents on the Sabbath is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he only is spreading and folding it on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the rule for a spread over a chest? He told him, since it was spread the day before he is like one who unlocks and locks on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters yeast is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Jonah both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina Beroqa said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, they also permitted preparations for making food. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters yeast is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Jonah both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina Beroqa said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, they also permitted preparations for making food. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

So is the Mishnah: One separates an egg in the sieve of mustard seed. A lump of mustard seed? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, one squeezes by hand but not with a tool. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One may squeeze both by hand and with a tool. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to him, do not the dogs make it so? [There came] Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One may squeeze both by hand and with a tool.

But was it not stated, “the Sages agree with Rebbi Meїr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary [to mention] on a holiday.”. This implies that they treated the clothes press as if it were in the ground. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so, “a washer’s one may not be touched.”

MISHNAH: A person may break open an amphora to eat dried figs from it; only he may not intend to make it into a vessel. One does not drill a hole in the plug of an amphora, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits. One may not drill a hole in its side, and if it has a hole one may not close it with wax because he smears. Rebbi Jehudah said, a case came before Rabbon Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Arab and he said, I fear that he incurred liability for a purification sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the roof as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they do not compare. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed stakes are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine or squash.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shadow it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav Oshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

They only said “higher than twenty”. Therefor at the end of twenty it is qualified. This follows Rav who said that the end of measurements is for leniency; Rebbi Joḥanan said that the end of measurements is for restriction. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For an alley whose beam is higher than twenty he puts another beam within twenty and this reduces to less than twenty. Rebbi Yose said, on condition that the entire qualification beam be within twenty. Rebbi Ḥilqiah said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even this comes following Rav, as Rav said that slaughter half by half is qualified, and why did they say that it is disqualified? Because of the visual impression. For if you say that he has to put it within twenty, he would put it higher than twenty.

“It should be reduced.” How does one reduce? He makes a platform at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. How much must it be? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Four hand-breadths for an alley. Rebbi Yose says, one hand-breadth corresponding to the beam. The colleagues say, anything, since here is no longer a height of twenty cubits in the widths of a hand-breadth.

If its height was less than ten hand-breadths one has to dig out. How much does he have to dig? Rebbi Aḥa said, four cubits as an alley. Rebbi Yose said, four hand-breadths as a space. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he makes a ditch at the entrance of the alley, ten [hand-breadths] deep and four wide; this permits the alley from inside and out, on condition that it be within three [hand-breadths] of the walls of the alley. And even he who says there four, here he agrees with three. There it is outside of the alley, but here within the alley.

If its height was less than ten hand-breadths one has to dig out. How much does he have to dig? Rebbi Aḥa said, four cubits as an alley. Rebbi Yose said, four hand-breadths as a space. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he makes a ditch at the entrance of the alley, ten [hand-breadths] deep and four wide; this permits the alley from inside and out, on condition that it be within three [hand-breadths] of the walls of the alley. And even he who says there four, here he agrees with three. There it is outside of the alley, but here within the alley.

“If it is wider than ten cubits it should be reduced.” How does one reduce? He puts a cross-beam on the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. This was said for width; the rabbis also apply it to height. Is it not as if opened in its length? It is turned into a porch. Rebbi permitted a porch in Bet Shearim. How many pillars did it have? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yose, one said, six, but the other one said, eight. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, they do not disagree. He who said six does not count the two outer ones, he who said eight does count the two outer ones. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Six is not important, eight is not important. But if it was used by the public even with two it will be forbidden, if it is not used by the public even with many it will be permitted. The case which happened was as it happened.

If a porch was totally open to the public domain, Rebbi La: [Rav] and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, one may carry in its entirety; Samuel said, one may carry in it only four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, does not Samuel agree that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified? But Samuel must hold, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. There came Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. Rebbi Yose said, even if Samuel would think that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified, an alley is not comparable to a porch. An alley is made for the use of the adjacent houses, a porch is made for the use (of a thing). If an alley is not roofed but there is a beam within twenty cubits, would it not be qualified? But if a porch is not roofed although there is a beam within twenty cubits, would that mean anything?

If a porch was totally open to the public domain, Rebbi La: [Rav] and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, one may carry in its entirety; Samuel said, one may carry in it only four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, does not Samuel agree that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified? But Samuel must hold, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. There came Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. Rebbi Yose said, even if Samuel would think that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified, an alley is not comparable to a porch. An alley is made for the use of the adjacent houses, a porch is made for the use (of a thing). If an alley is not roofed but there is a beam within twenty cubits, would it not be qualified? But if a porch is not roofed although there is a beam within twenty cubits, would that mean anything?

If it was wide within fifteen cubits, Rebbi Abba and Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He makes a plank of slightly more than three hand-breadths and removes it two cubits from the wall. The slight addition is treated as lath, and it is permitted on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space. Should he not make a plank four hand-breadths wide? Did we not state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide? Rebbi Abba bar Pappai said, in order to permit both parts without beam. Some Tannaim state, he puts up a stick and a double-pointed stake; some Tannaim state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Yose said, practice follows him who said, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if an alley has two entrances, he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Levi: Practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Abba said, only if he put up a stick and a doubly pointed stake; but if he made a plank four hand-breadths wide, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated thus: If an alley has four entrances, he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rebbi Yose said, only if he does it for a middle one. But if he put it on an outer one could it be that what is standing here would permit what is open there? What would permit that which is open there? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it that it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and you cannot infer anything.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rebbi Isaac’s street. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rebbi Joḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the dwellers in the alley be in error, lest they be intentional. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion did change. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Joḥanan annulled his rights. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rebbi Joḥanan and he carried. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this be so then the haters of Rebbi Joḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: An alley which was broken at its end into four [hand-breadths], at a side more than ten [cubits]. The colleagues in the name of Rav, there is no difference, whether at its end or at a side four [hand-breadths]. They wanted to say, he who says that “at a side more than ten [cubits],” therefore ten are permitted if it is four [hand-breadths] wide. He who says, “whether at its end or at a side four [hand-breadths],” if it is not four hand-breadths wide. Were we not of the opinion that Rav is like Rebbi Joḥanan? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to unify the entire domain.

An alley which was broken at its side towards the entrance, the rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yose. If four [hand-breadths] wide was standing it needs a beam, otherwise it does not need one. What is the difference between this and an alley which has two openings? If an alley has two openings, does he not put a beam over one of them and permits? Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, if an alley has two openings, is it not usual that people enter by one and leave by the other? But is it usual that people enter by one and leave by the breach?

Rebbi Zeˋira said, by what can a courtyard become permitted? It was found stated, with one plank, the words of Rebbi, but the Sages say, with two planks. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, practice follows him who said, by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows him who said, by two planks, but I am saying, by one plank. On condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side? But there are only planks of three hand-breadths on each side, and what he said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, a plank of any thickness on each side.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door. Rebbi Jeremiah said this before Rebbi Zeˋira, who told him, what do you have in your hand? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis here follow their opinion and the rabbis there follow their opinion. Since the rabbis there are saying, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them; they are those who say, it is not so. But the rabbis here who are saying, a hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door, they are those who say, it is so.

Rebbi Zeˋira asked, what kind of threshold? Like a permitted threshold or a forbidden threshold? Rebbi Zeˋira said, when I was still there it was questionable for me, but when I came here I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a threshold is ten [hand-breadths] high but less than four wide it is permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, look what he is saying! He only said, if it is less than four wide. But if it is four wide it is forbidden. He said to him, is that not the case of a cross-beam? Is it not permitted under a cross-beam? Rebbi Zeˋira said, Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan. Samuel said, under the beam it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Everybody agrees that between laths it is forbidden, and it was stated thus: If an alley is made of laths, if between one and the next are four hand-breadths one carries up to the outer one; otherwise one carries up to the inner one. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Uqba, unless the outer one is wider. But if the outer one was wider one carries up to the outer one.

HALAKHAH: “The legitimization of an alley,” etc. What laths? Two laths and beam following the House of Shammai? Laths but no beam following the House of Hillel? Three [hand-breadths wide] following Rebbi Yose? Arbitrarily small following the rabbis? Let us hear from the following: “It happened that Rebbi Eliezer went to his student Rebbi Yose ben Perora at Oblin. He showed him an alley where there was only one lath. He told him, make it two laths. He said to him, what? Are you telling me to close it off? He told him, let it be closed; there is an argument for the domains of the Sabbath in this respect?” This implies three following Rebbi Yose. If you would say, arbitrarily small following the rabbis, does arbitrarily small close off?

HALAKHAH: “The legitimization of an alley,” etc. What laths? Two laths and beam following the House of Shammai? Laths but no beam following the House of Hillel? Three [hand-breadths wide] following Rebbi Yose? Arbitrarily small following the rabbis? Let us hear from the following: “It happened that Rebbi Eliezer went to his student Rebbi Yose ben Perora at Oblin. He showed him an alley where there was only one lath. He told him, make it two laths. He said to him, what? Are you telling me to close it off? He told him, let it be closed; there is an argument for the domains of the Sabbath in this respect?” This implies three following Rebbi Yose. If you would say, arbitrarily small following the rabbis, does arbitrarily small close off?

HALAKHAH: “The legitimization of an alley,” etc. What laths? Two laths and beam following the House of Shammai? Laths but no beam following the House of Hillel? Three [hand-breadths wide] following Rebbi Yose? Arbitrarily small following the rabbis? Let us hear from the following: “It happened that Rebbi Eliezer went to his student Rebbi Yose ben Perora at Oblin. He showed him an alley where there was only one lath. He told him, make it two laths. He said to him, what? Are you telling me to close it off? He told him, let it be closed; there is an argument for the domains of the Sabbath in this respect?” This implies three following Rebbi Yose. If you would say, arbitrarily small following the rabbis, does arbitrarily small close off?

If two beams are one on top of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. It was found stated that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s argument and disagrees with him. He follows his fathers argument since he says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower. He disagrees with him since he says, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. If you would say that he follows his father’s opinion it could be arbitrarily high. Rebbi Yose, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rebbi Yudan; Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: Only if the upper one be within three hand-breadths of the lower one.

If two beams are one on top of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. It was found stated that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s argument and disagrees with him. He follows his fathers argument since he says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower. He disagrees with him since he says, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. If you would say that he follows his father’s opinion it could be arbitrarily high. Rebbi Yose, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rebbi Yudan; Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: Only if the upper one be within three hand-breadths of the lower one.

If two beams are one on top of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. It was found stated that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s argument and disagrees with him. He follows his fathers argument since he says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower. He disagrees with him since he says, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. If you would say that he follows his father’s opinion it could be arbitrarily high. Rebbi Yose, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rebbi Yudan; Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: Only if the upper one be within three hand-breadths of the lower one.

“Curved one considers it as if it were straight.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: It is everybody’s opinion, but only if the curvature be at the side, a curvature which does not obstruct the alley. But a curvature which impedes the alley makes it forbidden. What is a curvature which obstructs the alley? Any which if you excise it there is less than three [hand-breadths] between the pieces.

MISHNAH: The laths about which they spoke, their height ten hand-breadths, their width and thickness arbitrarily small; Rebbi Yose said, their width three hand-breadths.

HALAKHAH: “The laths about which they spoke,” etc. The Mishnah if they were distant from the wall. But if they were leaning against the wall even Rebbi Yose will agree. And it was stated thus: If one made laths for an alley, if they are less than three [hand-breadths] from the ground or they were within three [hand-breadths] from the wall, it is permitted. Three only if what is standing be more than the empty space.

[Rebbi] Aḥa told him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One does not use as support any Mishnah which is not accepted by a group. Rebbi Yose said, it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, even you have to say that it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on either side. (Rav) [Rebbi Mar] Uqba in the name of the rabbis there: They are considered only for the large one but are not considered for the small one.

[Rebbi] Aḥa told him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One does not use as support any Mishnah which is not accepted by a group. Rebbi Yose said, it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, even you have to say that it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on either side. (Rav) [Rebbi Mar] Uqba in the name of the rabbis there: They are considered only for the large one but are not considered for the small one.

If a wall on one side is extended and on the other side is shortened. Cahana said, he puts the beam obliquely and uses it obliquely. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Cahana: he puts the beam in the diagonal and uses in the diagonal, but only on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten? (From) Rebbi Yose [said], Rav Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it, on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits]? [Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits].] You conclude to say, what was problematic for the one was obvious for the other [and what was problematic for the other was obvious for the one].

If a wall on one side is extended and on the other side is shortened. Cahana said, he puts the beam obliquely and uses it obliquely. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Cahana: he puts the beam in the diagonal and uses in the diagonal, but only on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten? (From) Rebbi Yose [said], Rav Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it, on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits]? [Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits].] You conclude to say, what was problematic for the one was obvious for the other [and what was problematic for the other was obvious for the one].

MISHNAH: One may use anything for laths, even living things; Rebbi Meїr forbids this. And it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rebbi Meїr declares it pure. One writes on it divorce documents but Rebbi Yose the Galilean disqualifies.

HALAKHAH: “One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rebbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for him who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for him who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it would slip off, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it would slip off, would he notice? Rebbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rebbi Aḥa. (They said to him) [He said to them], it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice in case it slipped off you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice in case it slipped off not so much more? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa.

HALAKHAH: “One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rebbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for him who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for him who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it would slip off, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it would slip off, would he notice? Rebbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rebbi Aḥa. (They said to him) [He said to them], it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice in case it slipped off you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice in case it slipped off not so much more? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa.

Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rebbi Meïr of the laths, “it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rebbi Meïr declares it pure.” Rebbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rebbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba came in a ship, and Rebbi Aqiba made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. There came a wind which blew it away. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Aqiba, where is your sukkah?

Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rebbi Meïr of the laths, “it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rebbi Meïr declares it pure.” Rebbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rebbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba came in a ship, and Rebbi Aqiba made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. There came a wind which blew it away. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Aqiba, where is your sukkah?

Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rebbi Meïr of the laths, “it makes impure because of a cover stone, but Rebbi Meïr declares it pure.” Rebbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rebbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity.” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba came in a ship, and Rebbi Aqiba made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. There came a wind which blew it away. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Aqiba, where is your sukkah?

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.

HALAKHAH: “If a caravan rested in an area of difficult access,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of (Rebbi Ḥasdai) [Rav Ḥisda]: For whom was this needed? For Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, (the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehuda.) But he agrees here, and it was stated thus: One makes partition with everything, even camel saddles, even tubs, even camels, on condition that between two saddles there not be space for a saddle, between two tubs there not be space for a tub, between two camels there not be space for a camel, and on condition that no standing wall be opposite standing wall and breach opposite breach, but a standing wall opposite a breach and a breach opposite a standing wall.

HALAKHAH: “If a caravan rested in an area of difficult access,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of (Rebbi Ḥasdai) [Rav Ḥisda]: For whom was this needed? For Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, (the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehuda.) But he agrees here, and it was stated thus: One makes partition with everything, even camel saddles, even tubs, even camels, on condition that between two saddles there not be space for a saddle, between two tubs there not be space for a tub, between two camels there not be space for a camel, and on condition that no standing wall be opposite standing wall and breach opposite breach, but a standing wall opposite a breach and a breach opposite a standing wall.

HALAKHAH: “If a caravan rested in an area of difficult access,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of (Rebbi Ḥasdai) [Rav Ḥisda]: For whom was this needed? For Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, (the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehuda.) But he agrees here, and it was stated thus: One makes partition with everything, even camel saddles, even tubs, even camels, on condition that between two saddles there not be space for a saddle, between two tubs there not be space for a tub, between two camels there not be space for a camel, and on condition that no standing wall be opposite standing wall and breach opposite breach, but a standing wall opposite a breach and a breach opposite a standing wall.

Concerning the Sabbath, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed. From three to four, and from four [hand-breadths] to ten [cubits], it is permitted if what is standing is more than what is torn down, but forbidden if what is torn down is more than what is standing. More than ten, it is forbidden even though what is standing is more than what is torn down. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from three to four.” There is a hole of three and no place of four! Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state: “One surrounds with sticks,” does a stick form a place? He said to him, do not object to me from a breach less than three hand-breadths, since anything less than three is considered closed! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: In any case, since what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said (in the name of Rebbi), it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi [Yose], what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said (in the name of Rebbi), it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi [Yose], what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides.

MISHNAH: One surrounds with sticks, on condition that between one stick and the next there be less than three hand-breadths. They spoke about a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say that the Sages mentioned a caravan only as an example. Any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah; but the Sages say, one of these two. Of four matters they freed a military camp: One may bring wood from anywhere, and they are not liable for washing their hands, and from demay, and from making an eruv.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father and disagrees with his father. The argument of his father, about an individual more than two bet se’ah. And disagrees with his father, about a caravan less than two bet se’ah Did we not hear that Rebbi Jehudah said, an individual for more than two bet se’ah needs woof and warp? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Aḥa the Tanna, Rebbi Ḥanin, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Sheshet: Just as they differ here so they are differing about kilaim. And in Kilaim not even if it is a bet rova?

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father and disagrees with his father. The argument of his father, about an individual more than two bet se’ah. And disagrees with his father, about a caravan less than two bet se’ah Did we not hear that Rebbi Jehudah said, an individual for more than two bet se’ah needs woof and warp? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Aḥa the Tanna, Rebbi Ḥanin, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Sheshet: Just as they differ here so they are differing about kilaim. And in Kilaim not even if it is a bet rova?

How many form a camp? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, one hundred. Gideon came with the hundred men who were with him to the border of the camp. Rebbi Abuna asked, if it had said, “the camp of a hundred men who were with him” it would be acceptable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ten: David’s servants came and spoke to Nabal, etc. What means and they rested? Rebbi Justus bar Shune said, they made a camp. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, ten: Until the camp was large like God’s camp. How many are “God’s camp”? Ten. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: 12’000 who are marching off as camp of Israel in a war of choice are permitted to rob moist wood but are forbidden to rob dry wood. Those who march out in a war of obligation are permitted to rob both dry and moist wood. Rebbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If they were made into bundles it is forbidden. So far if it was not close to a forest; even if it was close to a forest. So far if it was not close to a spring; even if it was close to a spring. If they brought it with them to a town, they already are freed from liability. What they took out with them from a town already is liable for demay. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Ḥizqiah said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi: Demay was put in order or not in order.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble tents in a camp, as it was stated: “ Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

HALAKHAH: “One makes planks for wells,” etc. Since what is breached is more than what is standing he makes double columns but not simple ones, which proves by itself that it is because of access to the well. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: You are reaching here what are the limits of domains of the Sabbath, for if he did so at (one) place and then threw there four cubits in the public domain he would be liable. Rebbi Yose said, since you were lenient with him about what is breached may be more than what is standing, you are strict with him in another matter since everywhere else one makes a plank of four hand-breadths but here he makes a plank of six hand-breadths.

They wanted to say that Rebbi Meïr would admit to Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Jehudah will not admit to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Meïr will admit to Rebbi Jehudah? Does not Rebbi Meïr have simple poles, and you are saying so? If you are making double columns but no straight poles, he would think, perhaps a partition for the Sabbath is made in this way; he would make it in other places and become liable. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Neither of them yields to the other. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose (about) did not say this, he said something similar. Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Bun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: How far away does a double column have to be so it would not need a straight [plank]? He told him, less than three [hand-breadths] is considered closed, more than six is far away. Therefore we have to consider from three to four. If you would say that Rebbi Meïr yields to Rebbi Jehudah, should he not make a double column far away and not need a simple [plank]? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rebbi Meïr requires simple [planks] only according to Rebbi Jehudah’s method. Rebbi Yose said, even according to his own method, since in any case what is standing is not more than what is breached. Since what is standing should be more than what is breached it needs a simple [plank].

They wanted to say that Rebbi Meïr would admit to Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Jehudah will not admit to Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Meïr will admit to Rebbi Jehudah? Does not Rebbi Meïr have simple poles, and you are saying so? If you are making double columns but no straight poles, he would think, perhaps a partition for the Sabbath is made in this way; he would make it in other places and become liable. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: Neither of them yields to the other. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose (about) did not say this, he said something similar. Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Bun asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: How far away does a double column have to be so it would not need a straight [plank]? He told him, less than three [hand-breadths] is considered closed, more than six is far away. Therefore we have to consider from three to four. If you would say that Rebbi Meïr yields to Rebbi Jehudah, should he not make a double column far away and not need a simple [plank]? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, Rebbi Meïr requires simple [planks] only according to Rebbi Jehudah’s method. Rebbi Yose said, even according to his own method, since in any case what is standing is not more than what is breached. Since what is standing should be more than what is breached it needs a simple [plank].

“If one big stone was there one sees that if it is split and there be six [hand-breadths] in both directions it is considered a double column.” Some Tannaim state, if it is hollowed out. They wanted to say that he who says, if it is hollowed out, measures from the inside while he who says, if it is split, measures from the outside. Rebbi Yose said, would you not let it stand if it was like garlic skin? This implies that both he who says that it is split as also he who says it is hollowed out measures from the inside. He who says, if it is hollowed out, if it is round; he who says, if it is split, if it is square. You should know that it is so since one Tanna said to the other, the only difference between my formulation and yours is that you are speaking of a round one but I about a square one.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they permitted the planks of wells only to draw water. If water came on the Sabbath, the Sabbath already came with prohibition. If the well dried out, the Sabbath already came with permission. Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Nasa asked, may one carry between the planks? We should say that if there are four hand-breadths between one and the other it is like a prohibited threshold, otherwise like a permitted threshold, permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange.

HALAKHAH: “It is permitted to make them close to the well,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: This is its measure. With this measure even though the camel is entirely outside it is permitted. Less than this measure even if the kid goat is entirely inside it is forbidden. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, enough for a camel and its camel driver. Does he disagree? In every case where the cow stretches its neck, the camel bends its neck. Why do you want this? Could not the cow stand in the public domain and eat in a private domain? Rebbi Yose said, there it is about one who [provides] for it, but here if it eats by itself.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, up to two bet se’ah,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted, as we have stated there: “And similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not inverted. Rebbi Jeremiah said, for he is of Rav Jehudah’s opinion, as Rav Jehudah said, that is if it is open to a domain of difficult access. But if it was open to the public domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, everywhere Rebbi Eleazar seeks support from the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, how does one permit public domain? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam at each side but the Sages say a lath and a beam on one side and he shall make a door frame on the other side. And here he says so? Here about ten [cubits], there about thirteen. The words of the rabbis disagree. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rav Hoshaia asked my father, how large can the breach of an alley be in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah? And he told him, thirteen [cubits]. And here he says so? The Rabbis of Caesarea say, there what is standing is more than what is breached but here what is breached is more than what is standing.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if its length exceeds its width even by one cubit one may not carry there. Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width one carries in there.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it only contains a cistern,” etc. It was stated, “Rebbi Eliezer says, if its length exceeds its width even by one cubit one may not carry there.” This disagrees with R. Jonathan. “Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width one carries in there,” this agrees with Rebbi Jonathan. We also have stated, “Kilaim in a quarter. Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width.”

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it only contains a cistern,” etc. It was stated, “Rebbi Eliezer says, if its length exceeds its width even by one cubit one may not carry there.” This disagrees with R. Jonathan. “Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width one carries in there,” this agrees with Rebbi Jonathan. We also have stated, “Kilaim in a quarter. Rebbi Yose says, even if its length is twice its width.”

HALAKHAH: “With anything one may make an eruv or participate,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated there, “with anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. One makes an eruv for courtyards and participates both for courtyards and for domains. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, as it was stated: one may make an eruv with anything eaten raw as is; with bread, one does not make an eruv with it. Garlic and onions, in the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one does not make an eruv with them, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Meïr spent a Sabbath at Ardaksam; there came a person who said, I made an eruv with onions and Rebbi Meïr restricted him to his four cubits. Even though Rebbi Meïr said, with everything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, on condition that it be something eaten raw as is. Arum and colocasia: in the rabbis’ opinion one does not make an eruv with.

“With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt.” Rebbi Yasa said, because the body is not fed by them. Rebbi Levi said, because they are agents of curse. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he made them into brine it may be bought with Tithe money. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: only if he mixed oil into it. Rebbi Yose asked, then should he be able to use it for eruv only in proportion?