yose

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is qualified to read the Scroll except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, and the underage.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema` since there it is written: hear!, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all obligations. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? Bend your ear to His commandments, your ears should hear what your mouth says. Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf and dumb person is not mentioned, it is a formula. Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rabbi Ḥanania came in the name of Rav Ḥisda, this one is by Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their heave is no heave. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

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 because of 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. Rebbi Yose said, 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 did not start the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected before Rebbi Yose, 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 because of 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. Rebbi Yose said, 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 did not start the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected before Rebbi Yose, 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 because of 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. Rebbi Yose said, 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 did not start the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected before Rebbi Yose, 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 because of 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. Rebbi Yose said, 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 did not start the meritorious work, there is no reason to tell him to complete it. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai objected before Rebbi Yose, 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: “The people of a town who sold the town plaza,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose’s, for Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose said, the town plaza has holiness since one brings a Torah scroll and reads from it in public. But following the Rabbis one treats it like a distance of four cubits.

HALAKHAH: “The people of a town who sold the town plaza,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose’s, for Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose said, the town plaza has holiness since one brings a Torah scroll and reads from it in public. But following the Rabbis one treats it like a distance of four cubits.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥalaph in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥava: He who prayed should not spit until he walked four cubits. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said, similarly (spittle) <he who spat>> is the correct one. should not pray until he walked four cubits. He who urinates should not pray until he walks four cubits. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: not only that he walks four cubits but even if he waits corresponding to a walk of four cubits. If you say that he is forbidden until he removes himself four cubits, I say that somebody else came and urinated there.

One writes Torah and Prophets together, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one does not write Torah and Prophets together, but one may write Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs together. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Torah and Ḥumashim have the same sanctity. One does not split a Torah into Ḥumashim, but one turns Ḥumashim into a Torah. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a Torah which was split into Ḥumashim remains in its sanctity. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One does not read in public from an incomplete Torah. But was it not stated: It is permitted to read in public in Genesis up to the deluge, in Leviticus up to it was on the eighth day, in Numbers up to it was when the Ark travelled? This Ursicinus set fire to the Torah of the Sennabarites. They came and asked Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, whether one may read from the scroll in public. They told them, it is forbidden. Not that it is forbidden but since they will feel so badly they will buy another one.

One writes Torah and Prophets together, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one does not write Torah and Prophets together, but one may write Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs together. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Torah and Ḥumashim have the same sanctity. One does not split a Torah into Ḥumashim, but one turns Ḥumashim into a Torah. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a Torah which was split into Ḥumashim remains in its sanctity. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One does not read in public from an incomplete Torah. But was it not stated: It is permitted to read in public in Genesis up to the deluge, in Leviticus up to it was on the eighth day, in Numbers up to it was when the Ark travelled? This Ursicinus set fire to the Torah of the Sennabarites. They came and asked Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, whether one may read from the scroll in public. They told them, it is forbidden. Not that it is forbidden but since they will feel so badly they will buy another one.

HALAKHAH: “One does not interrupt curses.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, do not be repelled by his reproach, do not split it into many thorns. Rebbi Levi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, said that it is not logical that My children be cursed and I praised. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of that reason but because one who stands up to read in the Torah needs to start with something good and conclude with something good. Levi bar Paṭi asked Rav Ḥuna: these curses which we read as one, should one recite a benediction before and after? He said to him, nothing needs a benediction before and after except the curses in Leviticus and the curses in Deuteronomy. Rebbi Jonathan the scribe of Gufta came down here; he saw Bar Abuna reading the Song of the Well and recite a benediction before and after. He said to him, does one do this? He answered him, you still are about this? All songs need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Simon was asked. Rebbi Simon told them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, only the Song on the Sea, and the Ten Commandments, and the curses [in Leviticus and the curses] in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Abbahu said, I did not hear. It seems reasonable for the Ten Commandments. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: the eight verses in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Without this do not the one who starts and the one who finishes recite the benediction before and after? But it is needed for a New Moon which falls on a Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: “One does not interrupt curses.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, do not be repelled by his reproach, do not split it into many thorns. Rebbi Levi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, said that it is not logical that My children be cursed and I praised. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of that reason but because one who stands up to read in the Torah needs to start with something good and conclude with something good. Levi bar Paṭi asked Rav Ḥuna: these curses which we read as one, should one recite a benediction before and after? He said to him, nothing needs a benediction before and after except the curses in Leviticus and the curses in Deuteronomy. Rebbi Jonathan the scribe of Gufta came down here; he saw Bar Abuna reading the Song of the Well and recite a benediction before and after. He said to him, does one do this? He answered him, you still are about this? All songs need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Simon was asked. Rebbi Simon told them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, only the Song on the Sea, and the Ten Commandments, and the curses [in Leviticus and the curses] in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Abbahu said, I did not hear. It seems reasonable for the Ten Commandments. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: the eight verses in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Without this do not the one who starts and the one who finishes recite the benediction before and after? But it is needed for a New Moon which falls on a Sabbath.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the Levites’ song they should not have less than six readings; its mnemonic is hazayu laḵ. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: [the Song on the Sea] and Deborah’s song are written space on brick and brick on space. The ten sons of Haman and the kings of Canaan are written space on space and brick on brick, since any such building will not stand. How is that, as meritorious act or as impediment? Rebbi said to Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother, do you remember when we were standing in front of your uncle’s store that Rebbi Abba bar Zavda passed by and we asked him when he said in the name of Rav: an impediment?

Rebbi Ḥiyya the son of Rebbi Ada from Jaffa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: One has to recite them in one breath together with “the ten sons of Haman.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one has to write ish at the top of the column and the at the end since so it (rises) [is compressed] and sinks like a plumb-line. Rav said, one has to say, Haman be cursed, his sons be cursed. Rebbi Phineas said, one has to say, Ḥarbona be remembered for good. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When Rebbi Jonathan came to this verse, whom Nebuchadnezzar exiled, he used to say, Nebuchadnezzar, may his bones be pulverized; for all “Nebuchadnezzar” written in Jeremiah refer to the living, but here he was dead.

It was stated: One reads in the Torah and one translates. Not one reads and two translate nor two read and one translates, nor two read and two translate. But in a Prophet, one reads and one translates, [or one reads] and two translate; not two read and two translate nor two read and two translate. In the Esther scroll, one reads and one translates, one reads and two translate; two read and one translates, or two read and two translate. Does translation obstruct? Rebbi Yose said, since we are seeing that rabbis come on fast-days and read but do not translate, this implies that the translation is not obstructing. Rebbi Jonah said, even though you are saying that the translation is not obstructing, if he makes an error one corrects him.

From where the translation? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel: They read in the Scroll of the Torah, that is the reading. Explained, that is the translation. Making sense, these are the accents. And understood the reading, this is the Masora, and some say, these are the decisions, and some say, these are the starts of verses. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel: Even an expert in the Torah like Ezra should not pronounce with his mouth and read as it is said about Baruch: And from his mouth he would read all these words to me and I was writing on a scroll with ink. But was it not stated, “it happened that Rebbi Meïr was in Essia where there was no Esther scroll written in Hebrew, when he wrote it by heart and read it. One does not infer from emergency situations. But there are those who say that he wrote two. He wrote the first by heart, and copied the second one from the first one, put away the first and read from the second.” Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, I can write the entire Torah from memory. The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, I can write the entire Torah for two minas. How would he do it? He buys flax seed for two minas, sowed and harvested it, made ropes to catch deer and wrote the entire Torah on their hides. Rebbi heard it and said, happy is (the people) [the generation] to which you belong.

Rebbi Ze`ira asked: These three that are called, how are you treating them? As three who ate together or as three who ate each one for himself? If you treat them as three who ate together then the first one recites the benediction before, the last one recites the benediction after, and the middle one does not recite any benediction at all. If you treat them as three who ate each one for himself then even the middle one recites benedictions before and after. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, they did learn the benedictions for the Torah from Grace only in public. If in public, then in private one should not recite any benediction! Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said: They made it equal to other commandments of the Torah. Just as other commandments of the Torah need benedictions, this also needs a benediction.

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Rebbi Jonathan passed by the synagogue. He heard their voices reading without benedictions. He said to them, how long are you making the Torah out of bald spots! Moses instituted that the Torah should be read on Sabbath, holidays, New Moons, and on the intermediate days of holidays. Ezra instituted that the Torah should be read on Mondays and Thursdays, and on Sabbath afternoon. He instituted immersion for people with emissions of semen. He instituted that law courts should sit in large villages on Mondays and Thursdays. He instituted that peddlars make the circuit of villages because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. He instituted that one should wash on Thursdays for the honor of the Sabbath. He instituted that one should bake bread on Fridays so that a piece be available for the poor. He instituted that one eat garlic on Friday Night, because it brings love and removes desire. He instituted that women should talk with one another in the toilet. He instituted that a woman wear an apron front and back. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya said, because of what had happened. It happened that a woman was raped by an ape, both regular and irregular intercourse. He instituted that a woman may wash and comb her hair up to three days before her purity. Rebbi Yose in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Corresponding to the Sabbath and the two days of holiday in the Diaspora. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jehudah: only if the time of her immersion is in the meantime. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if the time of her immersion is at the end. Then Rebbi Ze`ira was looking at him. He said to him, what are you looking at me? What do you know that we do not know, you understand what is not with us? There came Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya and reported the reason: even if the time of her immersion is at the end; I am saying that maybe her spring is far away and she is lazy and not pure.

The Greek speakers did not use to do this, but a single person reads the entire portion. If one knew the portion he reads it completely. If of seven persons each one knows three verses, they all read. If one knows three verses he reads them repeatedly. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah, a slave is counted for the count of seven; “and spoke” is counted as one of three verses. But did not Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, it is forbidden to teach Torah to one’s slave? Explain it if he learned it by himself or that his master taught him like Tabi.

“One does not recite benedictions for mourners or bridegrooms.” It was stated, the marriage benedictions are said all seven days. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that one re-enacts the marriage all seven days. Rebbi Yose said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, the benedictions for mourners are said all seven days? Can you say that one buries the dead all seven days? How is that? Since here he enjoys with him, so there he consoles with him. As here one remembers, so there one remembers.

Samuel stated, the sanctification of the New Moon is only by ten {attendants}. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is said here community, and it is said there, how long this bad community. Since “community” mentioned there are ten, so also “community” mentioned here are ten. Rebbi Simon said, it is said here, in midst, and it is said there, the sons of Israel came to buy in midst of the comers. Since “in midst” mentioned there are ten, so also “in midst” mentioned here are ten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, if you infer from “in midst”, there are many. [But it is said here “the sons of Israel”, and it is said there “the sons of Israel”. Since there are ten, also here are ten.]

It was stated: One does not make public tender for slaves, and girl slaves, and movables. What is public tender? Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, announcement. Ulla bar Ismael said, slaves lest they flee, securities and movables lest they be stolen. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does this not imply that a slave be redeemed in front of three people? He answered him, yes. But did we not state: “Real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans”? He answered him, but the human here is a free person. Ḥanania bar Šelemiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi who wanted to act following the rabbis. Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, the grandson of Rebbi Eleazar ben Proteus, said to him: Rebbi, did you not teach us in your grandfather’s name, “except if he offered public tender”? He answered, yes, changed his mind, and acted following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

If the paragraph was of five verses, he reads all of them. If he did not do so, the following one has to read the two last verses and three from the next paragraph. If he did not do this, does it obstruct? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose went to visit the brother of Jehudah bar Tammuza the relative of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the synagogue of the neck-cloth makers. Rebbi Jeremiah was there and he stopped them. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, does one force? He answered him, here your teacher is stopping them. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Simeon Shara, Rebbi Ḥinena bar Andreas in the name of Rebbi Zakkai from Kabul: If he erred between one word and another one lets him repeat. Rebbi Jeremiah said to Rebbi Ze`ira, does one act like this? He told him, is that still a problem for you? Even if he erred between if and and if one makes him repeat. The people of his town told Rebbi Simeon, the teacher of Terbenth, cut the sentences which our sons are reading. He went and asked Rebbi Ḥanina, who told him, do not listen to them even if they cut off your head. He did not listen to them and they freed him from his teaching position. After some time he came down here. Rebbi Simeon ben Yosina associated with him. He asked him, what goes on in your town? He told him the affair. He asked him, why did you not listen to them? He answered, does one do this? He answered, do we not cut them in the study? He answered, but we repeat and take them together. Rebbi Ze`ira said, if this teacher had been in my time, I would have appointed him Rabbi.

If the paragraph was of five verses, he reads all of them. If he did not do so, the following one has to read the two last verses and three from the next paragraph. If he did not do this, does it obstruct? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose went to visit the brother of Jehudah bar Tammuza the relative of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the synagogue of the neck-cloth makers. Rebbi Jeremiah was there and he stopped them. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, does one force? He answered him, here your teacher is stopping them. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Simeon Shara, Rebbi Ḥinena bar Andreas in the name of Rebbi Zakkai from Kabul: If he erred between one word and another one lets him repeat. Rebbi Jeremiah said to Rebbi Ze`ira, does one act like this? He told him, is that still a problem for you? Even if he erred between if and and if one makes him repeat. The people of his town told Rebbi Simeon, the teacher of Terbenth, cut the sentences which our sons are reading. He went and asked Rebbi Ḥanina, who told him, do not listen to them even if they cut off your head. He did not listen to them and they freed him from his teaching position. After some time he came down here. Rebbi Simeon ben Yosina associated with him. He asked him, what goes on in your town? He told him the affair. He asked him, why did you not listen to them? He answered, does one do this? He answered, do we not cut them in the study? He answered, but we repeat and take them together. Rebbi Ze`ira said, if this teacher had been in my time, I would have appointed him Rabbi.

If the paragraph was of five verses, he reads all of them. If he did not do so, the following one has to read the two last verses and three from the next paragraph. If he did not do this, does it obstruct? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose went to visit the brother of Jehudah bar Tammuza the relative of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the synagogue of the neck-cloth makers. Rebbi Jeremiah was there and he stopped them. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Yose, does one force? He answered him, here your teacher is stopping them. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Simeon Shara, Rebbi Ḥinena bar Andreas in the name of Rebbi Zakkai from Kabul: If he erred between one word and another one lets him repeat. Rebbi Jeremiah said to Rebbi Ze`ira, does one act like this? He told him, is that still a problem for you? Even if he erred between if and and if one makes him repeat. The people of his town told Rebbi Simeon, the teacher of Terbenth, cut the sentences which our sons are reading. He went and asked Rebbi Ḥanina, who told him, do not listen to them even if they cut off your head. He did not listen to them and they freed him from his teaching position. After some time he came down here. Rebbi Simeon ben Yosina associated with him. He asked him, what goes on in your town? He told him the affair. He asked him, why did you not listen to them? He answered, does one do this? He answered, do we not cut them in the study? He answered, but we repeat and take them together. Rebbi Ze`ira said, if this teacher had been in my time, I would have appointed him Rabbi.

“One does not skip in the Torah.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because one does not scroll the book of the Torah in public. Rebbi Yose asked, think of it, if it was a small paragraph? But so that Israel should hear the Torah in due order. But did we not state: “he reads after the death and but on the tenth day”? There is a difference since this is the order of the day. You should know this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one never recites from memory but here he recites. Rebbi Yose ordered Bar Ulla, the beadle of the synagogue of the Babylonians: If there is one Torah, scroll it behind a curtain. If there are two, take away one and bring the other.

“One does not skip in the Torah.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because one does not scroll the book of the Torah in public. Rebbi Yose asked, think of it, if it was a small paragraph? But so that Israel should hear the Torah in due order. But did we not state: “he reads after the death and but on the tenth day”? There is a difference since this is the order of the day. You should know this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one never recites from memory but here he recites. Rebbi Yose ordered Bar Ulla, the beadle of the synagogue of the Babylonians: If there is one Torah, scroll it behind a curtain. If there are two, take away one and bring the other.

HALAKHAH: Is not necessarily the one who spreads out the Shema` the one who stands before the Ark and who lifts his hands? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, in order to hasten him.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated, “A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled.” And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing. Rebbi Jehudah says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Meïr says, excluding the blind person. And here we have stated, “a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`.” Therefore if he saw he spreads. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, is the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not spread the Shema`.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person.

HALAKHAH: It was stated, in his face. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? As the following: The finger of Rebbi Naftali was bent. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who said to him, since you are known in your town it is permitted. Rav Ḥuna disqualified one with sparse facial hair. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? Rebbi Mana said, it was a crowded holiday; so they should not say, we saw a minor lifting his hands. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to look at the Cohanim at the moment when they are blessing Israel. Rebbi Ḥaggai, when they said, one does not look, was it not because of inattention? By Moses, I shall look and my attention will not be diverted.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Bevai stated: Square [black] tefillin are practice from Moses on Sinai.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaim formulate “over”, some Tannaim formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare [the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare] the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaim formulate “over”, some Tannaim formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare [the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare] the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaim formulate “over”, some Tannaim formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare [the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare] the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

It follows what Rebbi Ḥelbo said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: The priestly blessings are read but not translated. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the reason? He told him, so you shall bless, it was given as blessing, it was not given to be read.

Where does one put this mezuzah? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: one divides it into three parts and puts it at the start of the uppermost third. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Ḥuna: One divides the door into half, then into thirds, and puts it at the top of the lowest third. What is between them? The place of the mezuzzah is between them. Bar Tabari asked Rebbi Isaac, think of it, if it was a high gate? He said to him, he puts it at his shoulder’s height. The house of study of Rebbi Ḥanina was made so. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the container of Rebbi’s mezuzzah was made like a bolt. If it was hung on the door, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he excavated the top of a stick and put it at an unbecoming place, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if he (nailed) [did not nail] it. But did we not state, on condition that he nailed it? Rebbi Yose said, on condition that he dedicated {the place} for it. Those of the family Malwan did so in the wars. Samuel said, if it was put inside more than a hand-breadth it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: It is necessary that its shema` see the door. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: So is the baraita, a doorpost serving two doors he puts it on the one he chooses. How can its shema` see the door? If a house has two doors, he puts it on the one usually used. If both were usually used he puts it in front. If both were in front he puts it on the one he chooses. A door which opens to the roof or to a garden is as if open to a wall, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages are saying, it is as open to the market.

Where does one put this mezuzah? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: one divides it into three parts and puts it at the start of the uppermost third. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Ḥuna: One divides the door into half, then into thirds, and puts it at the top of the lowest third. What is between them? The place of the mezuzzah is between them. Bar Tabari asked Rebbi Isaac, think of it, if it was a high gate? He said to him, he puts it at his shoulder’s height. The house of study of Rebbi Ḥanina was made so. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the container of Rebbi’s mezuzzah was made like a bolt. If it was hung on the door, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he excavated the top of a stick and put it at an unbecoming place, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if he (nailed) [did not nail] it. But did we not state, on condition that he nailed it? Rebbi Yose said, on condition that he dedicated {the place} for it. Those of the family Malwan did so in the wars. Samuel said, if it was put inside more than a hand-breadth it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: It is necessary that its shema` see the door. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: So is the baraita, a doorpost serving two doors he puts it on the one he chooses. How can its shema` see the door? If a house has two doors, he puts it on the one usually used. If both were usually used he puts it in front. If both were in front he puts it on the one he chooses. A door which opens to the roof or to a garden is as if open to a wall, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages are saying, it is as open to the market.

Ḥuldat hammulim is liable for mezuzah. A window, four by four {cubits} wide, in which slaves sit and make wind for their masters are liable for mezuzah. Coops one on top of the other are liable for mezuzah; one steps on the doorstep below. Rebbi Yose was sorry not to have seen the coop of Rebbi Ilai which he had made according to all rabbis.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked, what about a person deaf in one ear? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons make coats. The Rabbis said, two coats for each one. Rebbi Yose said, even one coat for each one. What is the Rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? For a hundred sons of Aaron make coats. And here, read this Torah in front of all of Israel into their ears. The Rabbis are saying, two ears for each of them. Rebbi Yose is saying, even a single ear for each of them.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked, what about a person deaf in one ear? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons make coats. The Rabbis said, two coats for each one. Rebbi Yose said, even one coat for each one. What is the Rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? For a hundred sons of Aaron make coats. And here, read this Torah in front of all of Israel into their ears. The Rabbis are saying, two ears for each of them. Rebbi Yose is saying, even a single ear for each of them.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked, what about a person deaf in one ear? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons make coats. The Rabbis said, two coats for each one. Rebbi Yose said, even one coat for each one. What is the Rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? For a hundred sons of Aaron make coats. And here, read this Torah in front of all of Israel into their ears. The Rabbis are saying, two ears for each of them. Rebbi Yose is saying, even a single ear for each of them.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked, what about a person deaf in one ear? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons make coats. The Rabbis said, two coats for each one. Rebbi Yose said, even one coat for each one. What is the Rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? For a hundred sons of Aaron make coats. And here, read this Torah in front of all of Israel into their ears. The Rabbis are saying, two ears for each of them. Rebbi Yose is saying, even a single ear for each of them.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked, what about a person deaf in one ear? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons make coats. The Rabbis said, two coats for each one. Rebbi Yose said, even one coat for each one. What is the Rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? For a hundred sons of Aaron make coats. And here, read this Torah in front of all of Israel into their ears. The Rabbis are saying, two ears for each of them. Rebbi Yose is saying, even a single ear for each of them.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen, he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there, the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable.

“The old”, for it is written, walking occasions. Rebbi Yose said, both are for leniency. If he can enjoy but not walk, I am reading for him walking occasions. If he can walk but not enjoy, I am reading for him you shall enjoy.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May one send one’s appearance sacrifice by another person? He said to him, let us hear from the following: “Those afflicted by scabies or polyps are exempt from appearance, since it is written you shall come there and bring there. The impure is exempt from appearance since it is written, when all of Israel comes, etc. The one able to come with all of Israel brings; the one unable to come with all of Israel does not bring.” Could he not send his appearance sacrifice by another person? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he may not send his appearance sacrifice by another person. Rebbi Shammai asked, or maybe the other way. Those afflicted by scabies or polyps (are exempt from appearance, since it is written when all of Israel comes. Rebbi Shammai turned around and said, Those afflicted by scabies or polyps) even though they cannot come with all of Israel, they can come by themselves. The impure one is unable to come by himself and with all of Israel.

HALAKHAH: The sacrifice of appearance is elevation offerings, but the festival sacrifice is well-being offerings. The House of Shammai are saying, one increases elevation offerings and diminishes well-being offerings. The House of Hillel are saying, one diminishes elevation offerings and increases well-being offerings. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The House of Shammai infer from the sacrifices [of Pentecost; the House of Hillel infer from the sacrifices] of the princes. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, is it not better to be instructed from a private offering about private offerings and not to be instructed from public offerings about a private offering? The House of Shammai said to them, it is better to be instructed by something applicable to the future; do not refer to the sacrifice of the princes which is not applicable to the future.

It was stated: “There is about the sacrifice of appearance what does not apply to the festival sacrifice, and about the festival sacrifice what does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance. For the sacrifice of appearance is totally for the High; this does not apply to the festival sacrifice. The festival sacrifice was in use before the Word and after the Word; this does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance.” Was the festival sacrifice in use before the Word? The language of festival sacrifice was in use before the Word: send My people that they present Me with festival sacrifices in the desert.“ And joy applies to matters which are his property and matters which are others’ property; whether matters usually used for the purpose or matters not usually used for the purpose. But those apply only to his own property and matters usually used for the purpose.” Rebbi Yose said, and why do we not say, anybody liable for a sacrifice of appearance is liable for joy but there are those liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance: “Women are liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, and you shall enjoy, even from a butcher shop. Rebbi Eleazar said, joy is mentioned here and joy in mentioned there. Since the joy mentioned there refers to well-being sacrifices so also joy mentioned here refers to well-being sacrifices. Rav Ḥuna ate (deflated things) [simply] all seven days.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure, and it is said there, for you cannot carry it. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure, and it is said there, for you cannot carry it. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money. From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure, and it is said there, for you cannot carry it. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses? To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Ze`ira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Ze`ira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: only be joyful, to add the night of the las festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the firs day of the festival? Or inverse? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and you shall be joyous on your festival of pilgrimage. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, “hallel and joy eight”? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Ze`ira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat.

“Each man”, to exclude the minor. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if he said, it is on me to bring a festival offering worth five tetradrachmas, but he brought for two; did he fulfill his obligation or is he already fixed Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If somebody said, it is on me to bring a reparation sacrifice for five tetradrachmas, is he not fixed? And here he is fixed.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first, also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania, Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first.

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 Abun 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, Rebbi La said, time. Sacrifice, one bull and one ram.

May one appoint Elders for selected topics? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi appointed Rav to invalidate vows and to see stains. After his death, he asked his son for {permission to judge} defects of firstlings. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he gave him everything: To sit in judgment alone, to invalidate vows, to see stains, and to see outside blemishes. After his death, he asked his son for {permission to judge} hidden defects. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Even though you say, one appoints Elders for selected topics, only if he is competent for everything. As the following: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi ordained all his students, but he was sorry about one who (had a defect in his) [had a running] eye and he could not ordain him; could he not have ordained him for selected topics? That implies (that one who is competent in one thing has to be competent in everything, even for one thing he is not competent) [one who is competent in everything is competent in one thing but one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing.]

May one permit wearing a coat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One permits wearing a coat. Rebbi permitted wearing a coat. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi permitted wearing a coat. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: At a place where one does not wear a toga. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, for easy vows.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things, if one added to them in error it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah, “if it was in error it is permitted, if intentional it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about addition to heave, he comes to tell you about other things. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done so one has a duty to instruct negatively about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn, always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams, and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is thus for something whose commandment is not so?

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah: Hadrian asked Akylas the proselyte, is it true that you are saying that this world rest on the spirit? He told him, yes. He said to him, how can you show this to me? He told him, bring me noble camels. He brought him noble camels. He loaded them with their loads, let them stand up and lie down, lifted them and strangulated them. He told him, here they are, raise them. He said to him, after you strangulated them? He told him, I did not remove anything from them, is it not the spirit which left them?

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah: Three lectured their teachings in front of their teachers: Rebbi Joshua in front of Rabban Joḥana ben Zakkai, Rebbi Aqiba in front of Rebbi Joshua, Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai in front of Rebbi Aqiba. From there on their mind was not pure. Four entered the Garden, One peeked and was hurt; one peeked and died; one peeked and cut saplings, one entered in peace and left in peace. Ben Azzai peeked and was hurt; about him the verse says, if you found honey, eat your fill. Ben Zoma peeked and died, about him the verse says, dear in the Eternal’s eyes is the death of his pious. Aḥer peeked and cut saplings. Who is Aḥer? Elisha ben Abuya, who killed the children of Torah. They said, if he saw a student excelling in Torah he killed him. Not only this, but he went to the school house and saw children in front of their Bible teacher. He said, what are these sitting doing here? The profession of this one is builder, the profession of this one is carpenter, the profession of this one is hunter, the profession of this one is tailor. When they heard this, they left him and went away. About him the verse says, do not let your mouth make your flesh sin, etc.; for he destroyed the deeds of himself. Also in the time of religious persecution they made them carry loads. They intended that two together should carry one load, because of two persons who performed one work. He said, make them carry singly. They went and made them carry singly. They intended to unload in karmelit, in order not to carry from a private to a public domain. He said to them, let them carry flasks; they made them carry flasks. Rebbi Aqiba entered in peace and left in peace; about him the verse says, draw me, I shall run after you, etc.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one who aggrandizes himself by the disgrace of another person has no part in the Future World. He who aggrandizes himself by the glory of the Universal Living not so much more? What is written afterwards? How great is the good which You hid for those who fear You. He may not have part in the great good. Rebbi Levi said, it is written, the glory of God is hiding things, etc. The glory of God is hiding things, before the world was created; the glory of kings is investigating things, after the world was created. Rebbi Levi said, do you know what happened earlier, but you since human was put on the earth.

MISHNAH: Yose ben Yoezer says not to lean on, Yose ben Joḥanan says to lean on. Joshua ben Perahia says not to lean on, Matthew from Arbel says to lean on. Jehudah ben Tabbai says not to lean on, Simeon ben Shetah says to lean on. Shemaiah says to lean on, Avtalion says not to lean on. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree. Menaḥem left and Shammai entered; Hillel says to lean on, Shammai says not to lean on. The first ones were Patriarchs, the second Presidents of the Court.

MISHNAH: Yose ben Yoezer says not to lean on, Yose ben Joḥanan says to lean on. Joshua ben Perahia says not to lean on, Matthew from Arbel says to lean on. Jehudah ben Tabbai says not to lean on, Simeon ben Shetah says to lean on. Shemaiah says to lean on, Avtalion says not to lean on. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree. Menaḥem left and Shammai entered; Hillel says to lean on, Shammai says not to lean on. The first ones were Patriarchs, the second Presidents of the Court.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions shall not be unimportant in your eyes, since leaning on is only a meritorious act and the fathers of the world disagreed about it. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one has to press down with all his weight. If it were not so we would have to say that it is forbidden to touch an animal on the Sabbath.

What happened in Ascalon supports him who said, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president. Two pious men were in Ascalon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, and nobody attended his funeral. The son of Ma`yan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other pious man started crying and said woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? He was shown in a dream that it was said to him, do not denigrate your Master’s children. This one committed one sin and died with it, the other one did one good deed and died with it. What sin did this pious man commit? Far be it that he committed a sin, but once he put on his head phylacteries before his arm phylacteries. What good deed did the son of publican Ma`yan do? Far be it that he ever committed a good deed, but once he prepared a breakfast for the city council but they did not come to eat it. He said, let the poor eat it, so it should not go to waste. Some say, he was walking in the street when a loaf fell down from him and a poor person picked it up. He did not say anything [in order not to embarrass him]. After days this pious man saw his comrade the pious walking in gardens, in orchards, at water sources, and he saw the son of Ma`yan the publican with his tongue out on the river bank trying in vain to reach the water. He also saw Miriam, Onion-leaf’s daughter. Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, she was hanging on her breast nipples. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the hinge of Hell’s door was fixed in her ear. He asked them, why? They told him, because she fasted and made herself famous. Some say, she fasted one day and was dissolute two. He asked them for how long is she in this state? They told him, until Simeon ben Shetah comes, when we shall remove it from her ear and put it in his ear. [He asked them, and why?] They told him, because he said, that if I would be elected Patriarch, I would kill sorcerers. But now he was made Patriarch and he did not kill them. In fact, there are eighty women sorcerers in the cave of Ascalon who hurt the world. You shall go and tell him! He told them, I am afraid that since he is Patriarch he will not believe me. They told him, if he will believe you it will be good. In case that he will not believe you, perform a sign in front of him: put your hand on an eye and take it out, put it back and it will be back. He went and told him. He wanted to perform [the miracle] before him, but he told him, I know that you are a pious person; more than that you could do. In fact, I never spoke it with my mouth even though I intended so in my thoughts. Immediately Simeon ben Shetaḥ went on a stormy day and took with him eighty select men. He gave them eighty clean garments, put them in eighty new amphoras, and put them on them upside down. He told them, when I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle for the second time, come in all of you together. When you enter, each of you shall choose one and lift her from the ground, since the nature of this sorcery is that separated from the earth it cannot do anything. He went and stood at the entrance to the cave. He said אוים, אוים, open for me, I am one of yours. They asked, how did you come here on such a day? He said, I was walking between the raindrops. They asked him, what do you want to do here? He said, to learn and to teach. Every one should make what he is able to. One of them said what she said and produced bread. One of them said what she said and produced meat. One of them said what she said and produced dishes. One said what she said and produced wine. They asked him, what can you do? He told them, when I whistle twice, I shall bring here eighty select men for your pleasure and entertainment. They told him, that is what we desire. When he whistled the first time, they put on their garments; when he whistled for the second time, they all entered together. He said, every one who comes shall select his mate. They lifted them, took them away, and crucified them. That is what we have stated: “It happened that Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged women in Ascalon. [They said, he hanged eighty women but one does not try two on the same day.” But the hour needed it.]

What happened in Ascalon supports him who said, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president. Two pious men were in Ascalon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, and nobody attended his funeral. The son of Ma`yan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other pious man started crying and said woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? He was shown in a dream that it was said to him, do not denigrate your Master’s children. This one committed one sin and died with it, the other one did one good deed and died with it. What sin did this pious man commit? Far be it that he committed a sin, but once he put on his head phylacteries before his arm phylacteries. What good deed did the son of publican Ma`yan do? Far be it that he ever committed a good deed, but once he prepared a breakfast for the city council but they did not come to eat it. He said, let the poor eat it, so it should not go to waste. Some say, he was walking in the street when a loaf fell down from him and a poor person picked it up. He did not say anything [in order not to embarrass him]. After days this pious man saw his comrade the pious walking in gardens, in orchards, at water sources, and he saw the son of Ma`yan the publican with his tongue out on the river bank trying in vain to reach the water. He also saw Miriam, Onion-leaf’s daughter. Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, she was hanging on her breast nipples. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the hinge of Hell’s door was fixed in her ear. He asked them, why? They told him, because she fasted and made herself famous. Some say, she fasted one day and was dissolute two. He asked them for how long is she in this state? They told him, until Simeon ben Shetah comes, when we shall remove it from her ear and put it in his ear. [He asked them, and why?] They told him, because he said, that if I would be elected Patriarch, I would kill sorcerers. But now he was made Patriarch and he did not kill them. In fact, there are eighty women sorcerers in the cave of Ascalon who hurt the world. You shall go and tell him! He told them, I am afraid that since he is Patriarch he will not believe me. They told him, if he will believe you it will be good. In case that he will not believe you, perform a sign in front of him: put your hand on an eye and take it out, put it back and it will be back. He went and told him. He wanted to perform [the miracle] before him, but he told him, I know that you are a pious person; more than that you could do. In fact, I never spoke it with my mouth even though I intended so in my thoughts. Immediately Simeon ben Shetaḥ went on a stormy day and took with him eighty select men. He gave them eighty clean garments, put them in eighty new amphoras, and put them on them upside down. He told them, when I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle for the second time, come in all of you together. When you enter, each of you shall choose one and lift her from the ground, since the nature of this sorcery is that separated from the earth it cannot do anything. He went and stood at the entrance to the cave. He said אוים, אוים, open for me, I am one of yours. They asked, how did you come here on such a day? He said, I was walking between the raindrops. They asked him, what do you want to do here? He said, to learn and to teach. Every one should make what he is able to. One of them said what she said and produced bread. One of them said what she said and produced meat. One of them said what she said and produced dishes. One said what she said and produced wine. They asked him, what can you do? He told them, when I whistle twice, I shall bring here eighty select men for your pleasure and entertainment. They told him, that is what we desire. When he whistled the first time, they put on their garments; when he whistled for the second time, they all entered together. He said, every one who comes shall select his mate. They lifted them, took them away, and crucified them. That is what we have stated: “It happened that Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged women in Ascalon. [They said, he hanged eighty women but one does not try two on the same day.” But the hour needed it.]

It was stated. “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, I heard that one punishes not according to practice and punishes not according to Torah.” How far? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, up to a murmur. Rebbi Yose said, by witnesses, but without warning. It happened that one went on the road riding in his horse on the Sabbath. They brought him to court and stoned him. But was it not a rabbinic violation? But at the time it was needed. Also it happened that one went on the road together with his wife. He turned to behind a wall and satisfied his needs with her. They brought him to court and whipped him. But was it not his wife? But he behaved in a degrading way.

It was stated. “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, I heard that one punishes not according to practice and punishes not according to Torah.” How far? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, up to a murmur. Rebbi Yose said, by witnesses, but without warning. It happened that one went on the road riding in his horse on the Sabbath. They brought him to court and stoned him. But was it not a rabbinic violation? But at the time it was needed. Also it happened that one went on the road together with his wife. He turned to behind a wall and satisfied his needs with her. They brought him to court and whipped him. But was it not his wife? But he behaved in a degrading way.

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.

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.

One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasts, and working.”

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Every day the High Priest dresses in his robes, comes, and sacrifices the daily morning sacrifice. If there are vows or voluntary sacrifices, he offers them. Then he goes to his house, and returns to bring the daily evening sacrifice, and comes to stay overnight in the Palhedrin lodge. Rebbi Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He did this only on Sabbath and holidays. There are Tannaim who state: the diadem propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Every day the High Priest dresses in his robes, comes, and sacrifices the daily morning sacrifice. If there are vows or voluntary sacrifices, he offers them. Then he goes to his house, and returns to bring the daily evening sacrifice, and comes to stay overnight in the Palhedrin lodge. Rebbi Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He did this only on Sabbath and holidays. There are Tannaim who state: the diadem propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.

MISHNAH: The garments of the vulgar are “support” for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are “support” for the eaters of heave; the garments of eaters of heave are “support” for the eaters of sancta. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious of the priests but his handkerchief was “support” for sancta. Joḥanan ben Gudgada all his life ate in the purity of sancta but his handkerchief was “support” for the ashes of the Red Cow.

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state, “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It happened that seven Elders assembled in the valley of Rimmon. Who were they? Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Neḥemiah, and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. They said, how many distinctions have sancta compared to heave? Rebbi Meïr says, thirteen. Rebbi Yose says, twelve. Rebbi Meïr said, so I heard from Rebbi Aqiba, thirteen. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, I served Rebbi Aqiba standing more than you served sitting. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian is a true Alexandrian. They rose kissing, and if any of them had no kaftan, his colleague cut half of his kaftan and gave it to him. And why did they do this? Because all of them were explaining the following verse, each one in seven ways: I shall sing to my beloved, my beloved’s song for his vineyard. They acclaimed the last one for the versions he found in it. They said, this was Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai. Why were they exerting themselves in this matter? They were explaining, saying, molten gods you shall not make for yourself. What is written next? The holiday of unleavened bread you shall observe. They said, anybody able to intercalate a year and he does not intercalate is as if he worshipped strange gods. When they were leaving they said, come and let us record our act. A rock of marble was there. Each of them took a nail and fixed it in it; it descended and sank in as in dough. Until now it is called the rock of nails.

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It happened that seven Elders assembled in the valley of Rimmon. Who were they? Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Neḥemiah, and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. They said, how many distinctions have sancta compared to heave? Rebbi Meïr says, thirteen. Rebbi Yose says, twelve. Rebbi Meïr said, so I heard from Rebbi Aqiba, thirteen. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, I served Rebbi Aqiba standing more than you served sitting. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian is a true Alexandrian. They rose kissing, and if any of them had no kaftan, his colleague cut half of his kaftan and gave it to him. And why did they do this? Because all of them were explaining the following verse, each one in seven ways: I shall sing to my beloved, my beloved’s song for his vineyard. They acclaimed the last one for the versions he found in it. They said, this was Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai. Why were they exerting themselves in this matter? They were explaining, saying, molten gods you shall not make for yourself. What is written next? The holiday of unleavened bread you shall observe. They said, anybody able to intercalate a year and he does not intercalate is as if he worshipped strange gods. When they were leaving they said, come and let us record our act. A rock of marble was there. Each of them took a nail and fixed it in it; it descended and sank in as in dough. Until now it is called the rock of nails.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry. In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place, [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure.

There, we have stated: “All vessels have back and interior, and they have finger-holes. Rebbi Tarphon says, concerning a large wooden trough. Rebbi Aqiba says, concerning cups. Rebbi Meïr says, concerning impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose says, they referred only to pure hands.” Following Rebbi Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, fluid outside on the cup and he touches it in his finger-hole, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Pure fluids are on the ground. If an impure loaf touched them, it made them impure. In which respect did it make impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a cup. But maybe fluid is on the hand and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the cup to make the hand impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If a pure loaf touched them, it became impure. It only says, a loaf; therefore not a hand. And following Rebbi Yose, if his hands were pure but the back of the cup impure, there is fluid on his hand, and he holds in the finger-holes, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If pure loaf touched them, it became impure. In which respect did it become impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a hand. But maybe fluid is on the cup and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the hand to make the cup impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are in the finger-holes. If a cup whose back is pure touched its finger-holes it became impure.

There, we have stated: “All vessels have back and interior, and they have finger-holes. Rebbi Tarphon says, concerning a large wooden trough. Rebbi Aqiba says, concerning cups. Rebbi Meïr says, concerning impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose says, they referred only to pure hands.” Following Rebbi Meïr, if his hands were impure and the back of the cup pure, fluid outside on the cup and he touches it in his finger-hole, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from his hands to make the cup impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Pure fluids are on the ground. If an impure loaf touched them, it made them impure. In which respect did it make impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a cup. But maybe fluid is on the hand and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the cup to make the hand impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If a pure loaf touched them, it became impure. It only says, a loaf; therefore not a hand. And following Rebbi Yose, if his hands were pure but the back of the cup impure, there is fluid on his hand, and he holds in the finger-holes, it is obvious that the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure. Just as the fluid does not become impure from the cup to make the hand impure, will the fluid not become impure from his hands to make a loaf impure at another place? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are on the ground. If pure loaf touched them, it became impure. In which respect did it become impure? Not to make a loaf impure at another place? Because they are on the ground; therefore not on a hand. But maybe fluid is on the cup and he holds at finger-holes, even so does the fluid become impure from the hand to make the cup impure? Let us hear from the following. Impure fluids are in the finger-holes. If a cup whose back is pure touched its finger-holes it became impure.

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

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Does a dry piece of flour-offering start a count? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is it not written, of all foodstuff which is edible on which comes water is susceptible to impurity. Any whose impurity is caused by water starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by water starts a count. Rebbi Yose objected: Is there not a carcass of a kosher bird which causes impurity of foodstuff without preparation and without impurity, because it ends up causing severe impurity? What about this? Of all foodstuff which is edible, any whose impurity is caused by the category of edibles starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by edibles the category of starts a count.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure.” “To make sancta impure, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, to disqualify sancta.” How? Following Rebbi Joshua? As we have stated there, “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree, and one hand makes the other one impure, the words of Rebbi Joshua.” And Rebbi Joshua says more than Rebbi, since what Rebbi said refers to sancta, but Rebbi Joshua refers to heave.

There we have stated: “The deep mourner touches but may not sacrifice nor take his part of meat in the evening.” There you are saying, he may touch. But here you are saying, he is forbidden to touch. Rebbi Yannai said, here when he put his mind to other things, but there if he did not put his mind to other things. Rebbi Yose asked, if he put his mind to other things should he not also be forbidden heave? How is this? As Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: They treated him like one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta. This implies that one who ate food which was of fourth degree for sancta is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. And here he is forbidden to eat but permitted to touch. There we have stated: “For the House of Shammai are saying, she needs immersion at the end, but the House of Hillel are saying, she does not need immersion at the end.” Where do we hold? If about eating heave it is difficult for the House of Shammai; if about eating sancta it is difficult for the House of Hillel. Does she not lack expiation? Do people lacking expiation not need immersion for sancta? If you are saying that there one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated here the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute. If you are saying that here one holds about heave, regarding what we have stated there the first part is everybody’s opinion and the second part in dispute. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said before Rebbi Mana, we are dealing with heave. There the reason of the House of Shammai is because of the unlearned, that they should not say, we saw a woman losing blood and eating heave.