yose

What means “tore apart”? Rebbi Ḥaggai explained before Rebbi Yose, “made wicks”.

Which of the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Moon has precedence? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the New Month have precedence. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: Between the song of the Sabbath and the song of the New Month, the song of the New Month has precedence. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference there since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To make a proclamation to make known that it is the start of a new month. How does one do it? One slaughters the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and says for them the song of the New Month. But here, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath have precedence, under the category: what is more frequent than another precedes the other.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: All watches in the Temple doubled and tripled with bulls, except for the two last ones who doubled but did not triple. Rebbi Eleazar asked, would one start with them on the next holiday? Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” It only is a problem following what was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: On the eighth day there was no lottery. In Rebbi Nathan’s opinion, would one start with them on the next holiday?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated so that the eighth day was a separate holiday, a separate lottery, a separate benediction, a separate sacrifice. Holiday, as Rebbi Abbin said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, for all of them is written and on day, but here is written on day, to teach you that it is a separate holiday. Lottery, Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” Benediction, Illa said, time. Sacrifice, one bull and one ram.

Rebbi Levi said, all watches were given in the South. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “if one day fell between them.” Rebbi Judah ben Titus in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, the verse supports this Tanna: and now what do you have ready, give in my hands five breads or what is available. But was Aḥimelekh from the outgoing watch?

“The incoming ones distribute in the North and the outgoing in the South.” Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, to honor the incoming ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not for this reason but because we have stated: “All who enter the Temple Mount enter to the right, and turn, and leave to the left.”

They asked before Rebbi Ila, so far for a commandment. From where a prohibition? The verse says, you shall come there and bring there. Where do we hold? If for a commandment, it already had been said. But if it cannot refer to a commandment, refer it to a prohibition. *Does one transgress about a Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time? It was found stated, about Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time one transgresses. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that you should not say that since if it was lost and found after the owner was exculpated, its body is brought as well-being offering, therefore it was a question whether one transgresses about a Pesaḥ sacrifice at its proper time. They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira, does one transgress between one holiday and the next? Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated, a holiday offering which was not brought on the first shall be brought on the second; does one permit him to transgress? In addition from the following: You shall do, a positive commandment. Guard, a prohibition. Does he not transgress a positive commandment and a prohibition only after three holidays? Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: If one said, I take upon me the obligation to bring an elevation offering on Monday. Once Monday has passed and he did not bring it, he transgresses. If its year is complete you cast down the last day and he transgresses every single day. If it is so, if three holidays have passed you cast down the last holiday and he transgresses every single holiday. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if its year was completed on Pentecost, is it possible to say it is not qualified and he transgresses?

As this: The fat of my holiday offering shall not stay until the morning. But could parts from weekday be brought on a holiday? Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, if the Fourteenth fell on a Sabbath. <rebbi yose asked, if the fourteenth fell on a sabbath,> no holiday offering comes with it, that the Torah has to say, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not stay”? And here, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not tarry”. Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he transgressed and brought, is it not qualified? Since it is qualified if he transgressed and brought, he would transgress.

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written, do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals. There, we have stated: “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written, on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement? And did we not state, Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written, do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals. There, we have stated: “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written, on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement? And did we not state, Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written, do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals. There, we have stated: “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written, on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement? And did we not state, Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: It is written, and on the eighth day one shall circumcise. If he transgressed and did not circumcise? He answered him, if you make a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it. A matter which is subject to replacement. It excludes this which is not subject to replacement. Do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. As it was stated: and to the gate of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, but not its replacement. Rebbi Jonah said, Levi ben Sisi explained it before Rebbi: If one said, upon me is the obligation of an elevation offering. There passed three holidays and he brought another one and sacrificed it immediately. I would say, he is freed from the first one. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. Rebbi Yose said, if he said, upon me is the obligation, he transgresses immediately. But we must hold about one who says, this one shall be an elevation offering. There passed two holidays and he brought another one [in its stead but did not sacrifice it immediately] and there passed by another holiday for it. I would say that it combines with its replacement for three holidays. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: It is written, and on the eighth day one shall circumcise. If he transgressed and did not circumcise? He answered him, if you make a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it. A matter which is subject to replacement. It excludes this which is not subject to replacement. Do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. As it was stated: and to the gate of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, but not its replacement. Rebbi Jonah said, Levi ben Sisi explained it before Rebbi: If one said, upon me is the obligation of an elevation offering. There passed three holidays and he brought another one and sacrificed it immediately. I would say, he is freed from the first one. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute. Rebbi Yose said, if he said, upon me is the obligation, he transgresses immediately. But we must hold about one who says, this one shall be an elevation offering. There passed two holidays and he brought another one [in its stead but did not sacrifice it immediately] and there passed by another holiday for it. I would say that it combines with its replacement for three holidays. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute.

“For demanding will demand, these are purification and reparation offerings. The Eternal, your God, this is dedication for the upkeep of the Temple. From with you, this is collecting single stalks, forgotten sheaves, and peah. Or there would be sin in you, but no sin in your sacrifice.” For otherwise what would we say? Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that you should not say, maybe the sacrifice will be found disqualified; therefore it was necessary to say, (do not tarry to fulfill it, and not its substitute) [there would be sin in you, but no sin in your sacrifice.] The pronouncement of your lips you shall guard and execute. “You shall guard and execute, to alert the court that they should force you.” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Avuna: From here the pledge. As you vowed to the Eternal, your God, a voluntary gift. Is there a vow which is called voluntary gift? But to make him liable for each single vow and every single voluntary gift. “What is the vow about which they spoke? He who says, on me is the obligation for an elevation offering. What is the voluntary gift about which they spoke? He who says, this one is for an elevation offering.” Rebbi Ḥama the colleague of the rabbis asked, if he said, “on me is the obligation”, and came back and said, “this one is”? Rebbi Ḥinena asked, would it not be reasonable if he said, “this one is”, and came back and said, “on me is the obligation”? A severe prohibition falls one a simple prohibition but a simple prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, on the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes. Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, The reason of Rebbi Meïr: Up to that point they finish to give birth from the old ones; after that they start to give birth from the new ones. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: The reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon, the rams are mounting the ewes, these are the early ones, and the valleys are clothed in grain, these are the late ones, they are friends and also are tithed, both enter the corral to be tithed. Ben Azzai said, since these are saying this and those are saying that, those born in Elul should be tithed by themselves. How is this? If there were born in his flock five in Av, five in Elul, and five in Tishre, they do not combine. If there were born in his flock five in Av and five in Tishre, they combine. [This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba] and Ben Azzai decides between his students. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For so disagreed the fathers of the world. Who are the fathers of the world? Rebbi Jonah stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher, [“since these are saying this and those are saying that”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac understood it from the following: “Ben Azzai said to him, we are sorry about their disagreement, and you come to find us disagreement where they are concurring.” This implies that Ben Azzai was colleague and student of Rebbi Aqiba. If you are saying that he was his teacher, is there anybody who says to his teacher,] “you come to find us disagreement”, etc?

There, we have stated: “Any born from the first of Tishre until the 29 of Elul combine; five before New Year’s day and five after New Year’s day do not combine. Five before the threshing floor and five after the threshing floor do combine.” “Then why did they say, there are three threshing floors for animal tithe? Because up to the time of the threshing floor one is permitted to sell or slaughter. From the time of the threshing floor he may not slaughter, but if he slaughtered he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the rules of animal tithe are neither like those of germinating nor like those of a third. If you would say like germinating, it should state, all whose pregnancy starts from the 29th of Elul. If you would say like a third, it should state, up to the 22nd. Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Like the third, they made it following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, {an animal} before its time enters the corral to be tithed. Rebbi Mana met Rebbi Shammai; he asked him, did you say that? But did we not state, “Ben Azzai says, those born in Elul are to be tithed separately.” Not even if it was born up to the 29th of Elul? Could you say that Ben Azzai follows Rebbi Simeon? You have to say, he follows the rabbis. Just as you say following the rabbis, he leaves them for the next year and they will be tithed with the others of their year, so you have to say following ben Azzai, he leaves them for the next threshing floor and they will be tithed with those from Elul. Rebbi Huna said, this implies that the days of a firstling while he still is before its time are counted for its year. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah understood this from the following: Any male firstling which isborn to your cattle and small cattle dedicate to the Eternal, your God.. How is this? You count its year from the moment it is born.

From where for remission of debts? At the end of seven years make remission of debts. Since years are counted from Tishre, also remission of debts is counted from Tishre. For Jubilee periods from where? You shall count for yourselves seven Sabbatical periods of year, seven years seven times. Since years and Sabbaticals are counted from Tishre, also Jubilee periods are counted from Tishre. They objected, is it not written, you shall sound the shofar of cheer in the seventh month, etc. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: So that all months of the year be equal and no month be divided into two years. They objected, did we not state, “on the first of Shevaṭ is New Year for trees following the House of Shammai; the House of Hillel say, on the fifteenth of it”? Then not all months of the year are equal and a month is divided into two years.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia. [One said,] already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone. But the other one says, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. But we do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said, already most of the rains of the entire year have passed, and also most of the season is gone, it follows that Rebbi Ze`ira said, up to then they live from the rains of the past year, from then on they live from the water of the next year. “It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked an etrog and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of Hillel.” Why about a citron and not about any tree? It was stated “the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer.” But do Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not refer to the House of Hillel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of Shevaṭ` of the second year, and the third year came. In the opinion of Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor; in the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

HALAKHAH: There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on the Day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. There are Tannaim who state, every item is judged on its proper time and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. Our Mishnah follows him who said, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time, as we have stated: “and on Tabernacles they are judged about water.” The words of Rav imply that all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day, since it is stated in the blowing prayer of Rav: “This is the day, the beginning of Your works, remembrance of the First Day, for it is a decree for Israel, a law for the God of Jacob. On it will be proclaimed for countries which one will be for war, and which one for peace, which one for famine, and which one for plenty. And creatures will be counted on it, to remember them for life or for death.” This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, an individual is judged every moment. What is the reason? You are counting him in the mornings; in moments You are examining him. You are counting him in the mornings, this refers to his provisions; in moments You are examining him, this refers to his food. The Elder Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi: King and public are judged every day. What is the reason? To look after the right of His servant and of His people Israel; each day’s affairs on each day. Rebbi Levi said, He will judge the dry land in equity, will pass judgment over peoples in straightness. The Holy One, praise to Him, judges Israel during daytime when they are occupied earning merit, and the nations during the night, when they are resting from evil deeds. Samuel said, as He judges Israel so he judges the nations. How does Samuel confirm that He will pass judgment over peoples in straightness? He judges them according to the qualified among them; He remembers for them the deeds of Jethro, he remembers for them the deeds of Raḥab the prostitute.

HALAKHAH: There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on the Day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. There are Tannaim who state, every item is judged on its proper time and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time. Our Mishnah follows him who said, all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on its proper time, as we have stated: “and on Tabernacles they are judged about water.” The words of Rav imply that all is judged on New Year’s Day and judgment is passed for every item on New Year’s Day, since it is stated in the blowing prayer of Rav: “This is the day, the beginning of Your works, remembrance of the First Day, for it is a decree for Israel, a law for the God of Jacob. On it will be proclaimed for countries which one will be for war, and which one for peace, which one for famine, and which one for plenty. And creatures will be counted on it, to remember them for life or for death.” This does not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, an individual is judged every moment. What is the reason? You are counting him in the mornings; in moments You are examining him. You are counting him in the mornings, this refers to his provisions; in moments You are examining him, this refers to his food. The Elder Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi: King and public are judged every day. What is the reason? To look after the right of His servant and of His people Israel; each day’s affairs on each day. Rebbi Levi said, He will judge the dry land in equity, will pass judgment over peoples in straightness. The Holy One, praise to Him, judges Israel during daytime when they are occupied earning merit, and the nations during the night, when they are resting from evil deeds. Samuel said, as He judges Israel so he judges the nations. How does Samuel confirm that He will pass judgment over peoples in straightness? He judges them according to the qualified among them; He remembers for them the deeds of Jethro, he remembers for them the deeds of Raḥab the prostitute.

Rebbi Eleazar said, παρά βασιλέως ‘ο νόμος ʼάγραφος. Usually in the world a king of flesh and blood decides a decision. If he desires it, he keeps it. If he desires it, others keep it. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not so but if He decides a decision He keeps it first. What is the reason? They have to keep My watch, I am the Eternal, I am He Who keeps the commandments of the Torah first. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, before white hairs you have to stand, and honor the presence of an elderly person, and to fear your God, I am the Eternal. I am He Who first stood before an elderly person. Rebbi Simon said, it is written: for who is a great people which has just laws and ordinances, etc. <For who is this great people that has God close to it.> Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world a person who knows that he will stand in trial dresses in black, wears black headdress, and lets his beard grow, since he does not know how his trial will end. But Israel are not so, but they wear white, wear white headdress, cut their beard, eat, and drink, and are happy. They know that the Holy One, praise to Him, will perform wonders for them. But the other one said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world if the ruler says, the trial is today, but the robber says, tomorrow is the trial, whom does one listen to, not the ruler? But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this. If the Court said, today is New Year’s Day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, put up the dais, [summon defenders, summon accusers, for My children said that today is New Year’s Day.] If the Court took counsel to transfer it to the next day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, remove the dais, remove the defenders, remove the accusers, for My children took counsel to transfer to tomorrow. What is the reason? Certainly, it is a rule for Israel, a law of the God of Jacob. If it is not a rule for Israel, so to speak it is not a law for the God of Jacob. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the past, the festive times of the Eternal, from then and onwards which You shall declare. Rebbi Ila said, if you declare them they are My festive times, otherwise they are not My festive times. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, great things You did, You, Eternal my God, Your wonders and intentions regarding us. In the past, great things You did; from then onwards, Your wonders and intentions regarding us. Rebbi <Joshua ben> Levi said, a parable of a king who had a watch; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a parable of a king who had a watch-box; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Aḥa said, a parable of a king who had a ring; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, a parable of a carpenter who had carpenter’s tools; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. Rebbi Isaac said, a parable of a king who had treasures; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. But the rabbis say, a parable of a healer who had a box of medicines; when his son came of age, he handed it to him.

MISHNAH: For two months one desecrates the Sabbath, for Nisan and for Tishre, when messengers go out into Syria and which fix the holidays. When the Temple existed one did desecrate for all of them because of the regulation of the sacrifice. Whether it was seen clearly or not seen clearly one desecrates the Sabbath for it. Rebbi Yose said, if it was seen clearly one does not desecrate the Sabbath for it. It happened that more than 40 couples passed by and Rebbi Aqiba held them back in Lydda. Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will make them stumble in the future.

MISHNAH: A father and son who saw the new moon should go; not that they could combine one with the other but that if one of them should be found disqualified the second one could team up with another person. Rebbi Simeon says, a father and his son and all relatives are qualified for the testimony of the new moon. Rebbi Yose said, it happened that that Tobias the healer saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slave. The Cohanim accepted him and his son and disqualified his slave; but when he came to the Court they accepted him and his slave but disqualified his son.

“Dealers in sabbatical produce.” “Who is a dealer in sabbatical produce? One who sits idle all the years of a sabbatical cycle. As soon as the sabbatical year starts, be becomes active and trades in forbidden produce. One does not accept them before another sabbatical year starts and he can be checked out that he repented in complete repentance.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, two sabbatical periods. “Rebbi Nehemiah says, repentance in money, not repentance in words; that he say to them, here are denars, distribute them to the poor, for I earned them from forbidden produce.” They added shepherds, extortioners, and any who are suspect in money matters, that their testimony be invalid. Rebbi Abbahu said, only shepherds of small animals.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion about this. “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting, [the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says], since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he started the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion about this. “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting, [the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says], since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he started the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, does cutting the `omer during daytime push aside the Sabbath? Rebbi Abbai objected, did we not state, “its obligation is to harvest during nighttime. If it was cut during daytime it is qualified and pushes the Sabbath aside.” But he did not accept it. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish changed his opinion about this. “After nightfall he says to them, did the sun set? They say, yes. Did the sun set? They say, yes.” Where do we hold? If about nighttime, that already was said. But if it does not refer to nighttime, let it refer to daytime; it is a matter that pushes aside the Sabbath during daytime. Do the preparations push aside the Sabbath during nighttime? Did we not state, “they made the maker of pan-baked breads make pan-baked breads.” Explain it, on a weekday. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada stated, “this is the daily order of service of our God’s Temple,” whether on a weekday or a Sabbath. But did we not state, “they harvested it and put it in boxes, brought it to the Temple courtyard, and were parching it in fire to fulfill the commandment of roasting, [the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says], since he started the meritorious work, one tells him to complete it.” Rebbi Judah from Kappadokia objected before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if it came from storage. Since he started the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected, did we not state, “for on a distance of walking a night and a day one desecrates the Sabbath and goes for testimony of the new moon”? He said to them, since the daytime needs the nighttime and the nighttime needs the daytime, it is as if it were all daytime. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not sanctified retroactively? Since it is sanctified retroactively there is no difference between day and night.

HALAKHAH: “If they do not know him,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, so should the Mishnah be stated: Originally one accepted testimony about the new moon from everybody. If they do not know him, one sends another one with him to testify about him. Rebbi Yose said, even as in the Mishnah it is acceptable: If they do not know him, one sends another one with him to testify about him. Why? Because originally one accepted testimony about the new moon from anybody. May a single witness be believed? They gave you from your own. It should be logical that no witnesses should be needed. But they said that witnesses were needed, and they said that a single witness may be believed.

What spoiling was there? Because they were saying, Pentecost is after the Sabbath; one always was going out in the evening on the presumption that it would be sanctified. Then for Nisan they should not accept, for the other months they should accept. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the main spoiling was in Adar. Then if it conforms with ours they should accept, if it does not conform with ours they should not accept. One because of the other. “It happened that the Boethusian hired two false witnesses to testify on the new moon that it be sanctified. The first came, delivered his testimony, and left. The other one said, I was climbing Maaleh Adumim when I saw it lying down between two rocks, its head resembling a calf, its ears resembling a kid goat. Is saw it, was taken aback, and stepped backward, and there were 200 denar tied in my money belt. They told him, the 200 denar are given to you as a gift, but those who sent you should come and be flogged. Why did you put yourself in this questionable situation? He said to them, I saw them trying to trip up the Sages. I said, it is better that I should go and inform the Sages.”

Rebbi Ze`ura said, that they should not think it was a star. Rebbi Yose said, did we see a star going up and down? Did we see a star going to and fro?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year. You shall sanctify years, [but] one does not sanctfy months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What means sanctified? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts with the most senior person. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the Court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the year one starts from the side. Rebbi Zebida said, but this lower house do not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rebbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rebbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but “in intercalation”, that the Sages added thirty days to it [and intercalated it.] Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rebbi Ḥanina started, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqisch summed up. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi summed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai started, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose summed up. Rebbi Cahana was ordained before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rebbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.

HALAKHAH: To whom did he send? Since it was stated, Rebbi Joshua said, it would have been better for me would I be sick in bed and Rabban Gamliel had not sent this, it implies that he sent to Rebbi Joshua. Through whom did he send? Since it was stated, in the following expression he said to him, Aqiba, you consoled me, it implies that he sent through Rebbi Aqiba. What should he have inferred? Rebbi Yose said, we know that if they sanctified it without witnesses it is sanctified. For what does he testify? “For if they sanctified it and then the witnesses were found perjured, it is sanctified.” But did we not state, “it happened that more than 40 couples passed by and Rebbi Aqiba held them back in Lydda”? Because they are 40 couples. But if it had been a single couple he would not have held them back.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: “If they sanctified it and after this the witnesses were found perjured, it remains sanctified.” Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi. He asked him, did your hear this from your father? He answered him, so said my father in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one is not fussy with testimony of the new moon.

MISHNAH: All shofarot are qualified except from bovines because this is a horn. Rebbi Yose said, are not all shofarot called horn, as it is said, when the ram’s horn sounds, when you hear the sound of the shofar.

HALAKHAH: They wanted to say that they do not disagree. It was found stated , Rebbi Yose qualifies one from cattle but the Sages disqualify. What is the reason (of the rabbis) [of Rebbi Yose]? It will be when the ram’s horn sounds. What is the reason (of Rebbi Yose) [of the rabbis]? Better than a cattle bull, sporting a horn, split-hoofed. It is written “of horn”. And the rabbis? All shofarot are called horn and are called shofar except from cattle which is called horn but is not called shofar. They objected, there is that from mountain goat which is called neither horn nor shofar! What about it? Following what Rebbi Levi said, there is a difference because no accuser becomes a defense attorney.

HALAKHAH: They wanted to say that they do not disagree. It was found stated , Rebbi Yose qualifies one from cattle but the Sages disqualify. What is the reason (of the rabbis) [of Rebbi Yose]? It will be when the ram’s horn sounds. What is the reason (of Rebbi Yose) [of the rabbis]? Better than a cattle bull, sporting a horn, split-hoofed. It is written “of horn”. And the rabbis? All shofarot are called horn and are called shofar except from cattle which is called horn but is not called shofar. They objected, there is that from mountain goat which is called neither horn nor shofar! What about it? Following what Rebbi Levi said, there is a difference because no accuser becomes a defense attorney.

HALAKHAH: They wanted to say that they do not disagree. It was found stated , Rebbi Yose qualifies one from cattle but the Sages disqualify. What is the reason (of the rabbis) [of Rebbi Yose]? It will be when the ram’s horn sounds. What is the reason (of Rebbi Yose) [of the rabbis]? Better than a cattle bull, sporting a horn, split-hoofed. It is written “of horn”. And the rabbis? All shofarot are called horn and are called shofar except from cattle which is called horn but is not called shofar. They objected, there is that from mountain goat which is called neither horn nor shofar! What about it? Following what Rebbi Levi said, there is a difference because no accuser becomes a defense attorney.

Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one who heard part of a straight sound from one who was practicing did [not] fulfill his obligation. And where is this said? “If he blew straight for the first set and continued a double length for the second he has only one in his hand.” Rebbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Not even one is in his hand. Why? The beginning combines with the end and the end combines with the beginning. The first part has no end and the second part has no beginning.

They were blowing before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi on a fast day. Rebbi Yose asked, should they not blow before him with trumpets? He had not heard what was stated, trumpets in the Temple, no trumpets in the countryside. Should they not pray 24 before him? As the following, Rebbi Joḥanan on the Ninth of Av was praying 24 but ordered his students, do not learn this action from me; because it was a problem for him whether it was mourning or a public fast day. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is not a public fast day. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is mourning, it is not a public fast day. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the case of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that a person prays four [times] of the Ninth of Av. He only said four, but not 24.

They were blowing before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi on a fast day. Rebbi Yose asked, should they not blow before him with trumpets? He had not heard what was stated, trumpets in the Temple, no trumpets in the countryside. Should they not pray 24 before him? As the following, Rebbi Joḥanan on the Ninth of Av was praying 24 but ordered his students, do not learn this action from me; because it was a problem for him whether it was mourning or a public fast day. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is not a public fast day. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is mourning, it is not a public fast day. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the case of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that a person prays four [times] of the Ninth of Av. He only said four, but not 24.

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it only said “somebody was passing by.” Therefore if he stood still, the presumption is that he listened purposefully. “If he put one shofar inside another shofar(,we shall say) [and blew], if one heard the sound of the inner one, he has fulfilled his obligation, if one heard the sound of the outer one, he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Abinna asked, what if he turned it inside out? Let us hear from the following: “If he scratched it inside it is disqualified, outside it is qualified.” He only said, he scratched; therefore if he turned it inside out it is disqualified. What is the difference between the two? One eliminated the inner space, the other did not eliminate the inner space.

HALAKHAH: It is stated: “In truth, they said a woman may say Grace for her husband, a slave for his master, and a (son) [minor] for his father. [One understands a woman for her husband, a slave for his master. A minor for his father?] Did not Rebbi Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Nahorai: All they said about a minor is for the latter’s education? Explain it that he recites after him (Amen), as we stated there: “A person to whom a slave, or a woman, or a minor, read for him, repeats after them what they say, and it should be a curse for him.” There should be a curse on the man of twenty years who needs the child of ten.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If the Court moved from place to place they were not blowing. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Simon, even from house to house, from dining room to bedroom? He told him: Personality, so far I heard.

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.”

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba said to him, if he does not blow for Malkhiot, why does he recite? But one recites “fathers”, “mightiness”, and “Sanctification of the Name”, includes Malkhiot with “Sanctification of the Day” and blows, Zikhronot and blows, Shofarot and blows, and recites “Service”, “Thanks”, and Priestly Blessing. One does not reduce to less than ten verses of Kingdom, ten verses of Remembrance, ten verses of Shofar. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, if he said three of each he fulfilled his obligation. One does not mention verses of Kingdom, Remembrance, or Shofar of calamity. One starts with Torah and ends with Prophets; Rebbi Yose says, if he finished with Torah he fulfilled his obligation.

“Powers” are counted as verses of kingdom, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they do not count. “Powers” and “kingdoms” are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Jehudah says, they do not. Sing to God, sing; sing to our King, sing, are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they are not. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, do they disagree about it and the sequel, or do they disagree about this text itself? Since it was stated, everybody agrees about God is King over nations that it is one, this implies that they disagree about it and the sequel. Lift, o gates, your heads, and be raised, eternal doors; etc., Lift, o gates, your heads, and rise, eternal doors, etc. The first is counted as one and the second as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose said, the first as two and the second as three.

“Powers” are counted as verses of kingdom, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they do not count. “Powers” and “kingdoms” are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Jehudah says, they do not. Sing to God, sing; sing to our King, sing, are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they are not. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, do they disagree about it and the sequel, or do they disagree about this text itself? Since it was stated, everybody agrees about God is King over nations that it is one, this implies that they disagree about it and the sequel. Lift, o gates, your heads, and be raised, eternal doors; etc., Lift, o gates, your heads, and rise, eternal doors, etc. The first is counted as one and the second as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose said, the first as two and the second as three.

“Powers” are counted as verses of kingdom, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they do not count. “Powers” and “kingdoms” are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Jehudah says, they do not. Sing to God, sing; sing to our King, sing, are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they are not. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, do they disagree about it and the sequel, or do they disagree about this text itself? Since it was stated, everybody agrees about God is King over nations that it is one, this implies that they disagree about it and the sequel. Lift, o gates, your heads, and be raised, eternal doors; etc., Lift, o gates, your heads, and rise, eternal doors, etc. The first is counted as one and the second as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose said, the first as two and the second as three.

“Powers” are counted as verses of kingdom, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they do not count. “Powers” and “kingdoms” are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Yose; Rebbi Jehudah says, they do not. Sing to God, sing; sing to our King, sing, are counted as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, they are not. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, do they disagree about it and the sequel, or do they disagree about this text itself? Since it was stated, everybody agrees about God is King over nations that it is one, this implies that they disagree about it and the sequel. Lift, o gates, your heads, and be raised, eternal doors; etc., Lift, o gates, your heads, and rise, eternal doors, etc. The first is counted as one and the second as two, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose said, the first as two and the second as three.

Should one not say the same for Hallel? Not all people are there. Then should one not say the same for blowing, not all people are there? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written, day, day they will seek, that is shofar blowing and willow twigs. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Alexander heard it from the following: Eternal, listen to sincerity, this is the reading of the shema`. Take note of my song, this is the song of Torah. Listen to my prayer, this is prayer. Disregard swindling lips, this is musaf. What is written afterwards? From before You may my judgment come. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said before Rebbi Ze`ira, there is a difference, since the obligation of the day is in musaf. Rebbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, the verse says so: A day of shofar blowing, and you shall make. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Qaṣarta: For all sacrifices it is written and you shall offer, but here is written, you shall make. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to them, since you came before Me in judgment on New Year’s day and left in peace, I consider it as if you were newly created.

Should one not say the same for Hallel? Not all people are there. Then should one not say the same for blowing, not all people are there? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written, day, day they will seek, that is shofar blowing and willow twigs. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Alexander heard it from the following: Eternal, listen to sincerity, this is the reading of the shema`. Take note of my song, this is the song of Torah. Listen to my prayer, this is prayer. Disregard swindling lips, this is musaf. What is written afterwards? From before You may my judgment come. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said before Rebbi Ze`ira, there is a difference, since the obligation of the day is in musaf. Rebbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, the verse says so: A day of shofar blowing, and you shall make. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Qaṣarta: For all sacrifices it is written and you shall offer, but here is written, you shall make. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to them, since you came before Me in judgment on New Year’s day and left in peace, I consider it as if you were newly created.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina (asked): Any which has sexual relations during daytime gives birth during daytime, during nighttime gives birth during nighttime. They objected, does a chicken not have sexual relations only during daytime and it gives birth both during daytime and nighttime? Rebbi Abun said, there is a difference, since it gives birth without a male. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Giddul: A calf born from a ṭerefa on a holiday is permitted; it has the status of something prepared hidden in something not prepared.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Does this follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle neither with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. Rebbi Yose said, the language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a ṭerefa are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a ṭerefa which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching. And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the sons of Jehudah ben Shamuai that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Does this follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle neither with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. Rebbi Yose said, the language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a ṭerefa are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a ṭerefa which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching. And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the sons of Jehudah ben Shamuai that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Does this follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle neither with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. Rebbi Yose said, the language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a ṭerefa are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a ṭerefa which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching. And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the sons of Jehudah ben Shamuai that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness.

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

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy, people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover. And it was stated so: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

It was stated: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday, then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite who blew. And it was stated so: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind.” Rebbi Yose asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night, you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori.

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday, if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover. The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side. Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place? Would we say that soil may not be used?

HALAKHAH: Jehudah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya went out. They asked him, what are the rules for a ladder to the upper floor? He told them, it is permitted. When he returned to his father, he asked him, what case came to your hands? He said, I permitted them the ladder to the upper floor. He appointed his Tanna before him, who stated, “when was this said, about a ladder for a dovecote. But a ladder for the upper floor is forbidden.” What is the difference between a ladder for a dovecote and a ladder for the upper floor? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a ladder for a dovecote if he had used it the day before for work it would be weak; a ladder for the upper floor may be used for work the day before. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on the ladder for a dovecote he may stand and use it for his purpose; on the ladder for the upper floor he may not stand and use it for his purpose. A ladder for a dovecote even if it is used to climb to the upper floor; a ladder for the upper floor even if it used to climb to the dovecote.

“The House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.” The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to there;” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi was knocking on his dovecote and saying, my dovecote shall provide me tomorrow.

HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away], the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.” There, we have stated: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

Rebbi Yudan said, this is only if there were there two broods. But if only one brood is there it does not apply. But did we not state, “if there are no others around they are permitted”? [Rebbi Yose bar Abun said,] if there only is a single chick available. [Only one brood of black ones.]

Samuel said, anybody who tightly closes the shutters on the holiday is liable because of building. This is difficult. Something which if it was done on the Sabbath makes him liable for a purification sacrifice the House of Hillel permit to restore? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the start. For if you say that he cannot put them back he will not open. Don’t let him open! Then he detracts from the enjoyment of the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa said, he may put them back on condition that he not restore completely. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if there is no door there. But if there is a door he uses the door.

HALAKHAH: Therefore not an adult? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even an adult is permitted. For what purpose was stated “a small child”? It comes to inform you of the strength of the House of Shammai, how far they are restrictive. Samuel was carried from bed to bed. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa, let us say that he was asthenic. He told him, he was healthier than I and you. It was stated, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi <yose> says, the stones on which we sat on in our youth make war against us in our old age. Rebbi Jonah ordered the colleagues, do not sit on the [outside] stone benches of the assembly of Bar Ulla because they are cold. Rav commanded his students, do not sit on the outside table of the assembly of Issy because it is cold. Rebbi Abba went down to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias, leaning on two Goths. They fell down and he lifted them up, they fell down and he lifted them up. One asked him, what is this? He said to them, I preserved my strength for my old age. Rav Huna did not come to the house of assembly. Rav Qatina asked, was it not stated that one carries the asthenics?

HALAKHAH: Therefore not an adult? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even an adult is permitted. For what purpose was stated “a small child”? It comes to inform you of the strength of the House of Shammai, how far they are restrictive. Samuel was carried from bed to bed. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa, let us say that he was asthenic. He told him, he was healthier than I and you. It was stated, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi <yose> says, the stones on which we sat on in our youth make war against us in our old age. Rebbi Jonah ordered the colleagues, do not sit on the [outside] stone benches of the assembly of Bar Ulla because they are cold. Rav commanded his students, do not sit on the outside table of the assembly of Issy because it is cold. Rebbi Abba went down to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias, leaning on two Goths. They fell down and he lifted them up, they fell down and he lifted them up. One asked him, what is this? He said to them, I preserved my strength for my old age. Rav Huna did not come to the house of assembly. Rav Qatina asked, was it not stated that one carries the asthenics?

It is difficult for the House of Hillel, could he not have the right to separate heave? Think of it, if he made a stipulation! One because of the other. And why was ḥallah stated? Because of ḥallah which was separated on the holiday. As it was stated: “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them.

It is difficult for the House of Hillel, could he not have the right to separate heave? Think of it, if he made a stipulation! One because of the other. And why was ḥallah stated? Because of ḥallah which was separated on the holiday. As it was stated: “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he picks out normally into his chest or a basket”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he drenches and scoops off.” And was it not stated, in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Normal grinding was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he picks out normally into his chest or a basket”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he drenches and scoops off.” And was it not stated, in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Normal grinding was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he picks out normally into his chest or a basket”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he drenches and scoops off.” And was it not stated, in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Normal grinding was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he picks out normally into his chest or a basket”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he drenches and scoops off.” And was it not stated, in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Normal grinding was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Ze`ira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine is 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 bar Yaqe 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, also preparations for making food are permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Ze`ira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine is 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 bar Yaqe 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, also preparations for making food are permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He has to say, for me and for him who made no eruv. If somebody made no eruv, others who made an eruv are allowed to prepare for him from his own {provisions}. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: Only if he transfers his property to them, for otherwise it would turn out that they prepare for him from his own. If somebody did not make an eruv and neither did others, he may fry a fish. Rav Ḥuna said, he may heat hot water. Samuel said, he may light a candle. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “he fills an amphora of (wine) [water] and lights his candle”. “It happened that somebody put a vow on his son to study Torah. The case came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta who permitted him to fill him an amphora with water and to light the candle for him.”

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

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was passing by the school when he heard them reciting the verse, they sacrificed animal sacrifices and brought elevation sacrifices the next day. He said, he who interrupts follows the House of Shammai; he who reads it as one sentence follows the House of Hillel. One understands elevation sacrifices the next day; but well-being sacrifices the next day? Are not well-being sacrifices brought following the House of Shammai? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, David died on Pentecost; all of Israel were deep mourners and they brought the next day.