yose

“The House of Shammai say, she needs two cloths for each intercourse or she should have sex by candle light.” But was it not stated: The person who engages in sex by light is blameworthy? So is the Mishnah: She may have sex and [then] check by candle light. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If she had intercourse using a cloth, she is forbidden to her house. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if her proof exists, she is permitted; if there is no proof, not so much more? Rebbi Yose said, there, you can determine the facts; here, you cannot determine the facts.

HALAKHAH: “The Sages gave a simile about a woman’s anatomy,” etc. So is the Mishnah: The blood from the room is impure but the blood from the upper floor is pure. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The room is inwards from the anteroom; the upper floor is over the room up to the middle of the anteroom, the door of the upper floor opens to the anteroom. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac asked Rav Huna: Does the Mishnah [deal with the case that blood was found] inwards of the door of the upper floor? He said to him, if it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, three are like a doubt but they treated them as certain, viz., the following: A woman who has a miscarriage in the form of a cut-off hand or cut-off foot, or a placenta, and blood found in the anteroom. What are we speaking of? If it was found inwards of the door of the upper floor it is certainly [impure]. But we must deal with the case that it was found outwards from the door of the upper floor. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaios asked before Rebbi Yose: We have stated many doubts and you say so? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan spoke only of a woman.

MISHNAH: Five kinds of blood are impure from a woman: Red, black, like saffron stigma, and like earth water, and like mixed wine. The Hause of Shammai say, also like fenugreek water and like roast beef juice, but the House of Hillel declare these pure. The green Aqabia ben Mahalalel declares impure but the Sages declare it pure. Rebbi Meïr said, if it does not cause impurity as a stain, it causes impurity as a body fluid. Rebbi Yose says, neither one nor the other.

“The Hause of Shammai say, also like fenugreek water and like roast beef juice.” That makes seven. They are similar to earth water. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav, the colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Meïr did not declare impure, only Aqabia mentioned it. Then it also should bring impurity like fenugreek water and like roast beef juice which were mentioned by the House of Shammai! These are similar to earth water. Pure blood prepares for impurity, impure blood does not prepare.

HALAKHAH: “How is red,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla from Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia: Like blood of a wound which was hit a second time. Rebbi Jacob bar Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies this, “red like blood from a wound.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman and Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa were sitting together when a man passed by them. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman said to Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: That one is close to produce blood of a menstruating woman. Does he disagree? If he would be hit a second time, it would be like menstrual blood.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah declared impure only in the color of the four kinds of blood. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nehorai: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar heard that and said, I do not accept this. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he did not say that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah but he saw that the rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai: One tears it open. If one finds blood collected there, she is impure, otherwise she is pure. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, disagreeing with Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: “Blood would be her flow from her genitals,” not what is in the amnion nor in a lump.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Meïr’s reason is that “shaping” is written for them as for humans. “The Eternal God shaped man as dust from the earth.” Rebbi Immi asked, because “shaping” is written for them as for animals, “the Eternal God shaped from the earth all animals of the field and the birds of the sky”? But is it not written “for behold the Shaper of mountains and Creator of wind”? Then, if she has a miscarriage in the shape of a mountain, she should be impure because of birth! There is a difference, for shaping is not written for them in the Creation story. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they look forward as humans do. Abba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they walk forward as humans do. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: Did we not state, “if his eyeball is round like that of a human,” is that not a defect? Rebbi Yose said, did we not state, look forward; did we not state, walk? What about it? Human eyeballs are round, animal eyeballs are elongated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, human eyes have more white than black, animal eyes have more black than white.

Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Meïr’s reason is that “shaping” is written for them as for humans. “The Eternal God shaped man as dust from the earth.” Rebbi Immi asked, because “shaping” is written for them as for animals, “the Eternal God shaped from the earth all animals of the field and the birds of the sky”? But is it not written “for behold the Shaper of mountains and Creator of wind”? Then, if she has a miscarriage in the shape of a mountain, she should be impure because of birth! There is a difference, for shaping is not written for them in the Creation story. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they look forward as humans do. Abba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they walk forward as humans do. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: Did we not state, “if his eyeball is round like that of a human,” is that not a defect? Rebbi Yose said, did we not state, look forward; did we not state, walk? What about it? Human eyeballs are round, animal eyeballs are elongated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, human eyes have more white than black, animal eyes have more black than white.

And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. The following are the criteria: The forehead, the eyebrows, the eye, the ear, the mandible, the nose, the beard, and the dimple. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi: Only if the entire face has human traits; but the words of the rabbis: Even one of the criteria; and the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Even its fingernails. Rebbi Phineas asked: Are not the statements of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai inverted? There, he says, “only if its head and most of its body are like its mother,” and here, he says so? Here about humans, there about animals. Rebbi Abba said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went South. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its entire body is human and only its face is animal? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, it is no birth. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Zeugos went out, Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its eyes are shapeless? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, there is no child. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his own opinion since Rebbi says, only if the entire face has human traits. What if its face was crushed? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is no child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is a child. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, not that Rebbi Joḥanan said it is no child in every respect but it is no child to provide the mother with days of purity; it is a child to require the mother to observe the days of birth. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If its hip is unformed, it is not a child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Joshua: If the navel is unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zakkai: If its holes are unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Gidul: If its skull is unformed there is no child.

And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. The following are the criteria: The forehead, the eyebrows, the eye, the ear, the mandible, the nose, the beard, and the dimple. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi: Only if the entire face has human traits; but the words of the rabbis: Even one of the criteria; and the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Even its fingernails. Rebbi Phineas asked: Are not the statements of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai inverted? There, he says, “only if its head and most of its body are like its mother,” and here, he says so? Here about humans, there about animals. Rebbi Abba said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went South. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its entire body is human and only its face is animal? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, it is no birth. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Zeugos went out, Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its eyes are shapeless? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, there is no child. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his own opinion since Rebbi says, only if the entire face has human traits. What if its face was crushed? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is no child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is a child. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, not that Rebbi Joḥanan said it is no child in every respect but it is no child to provide the mother with days of purity; it is a child to require the mother to observe the days of birth. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If its hip is unformed, it is not a child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Joshua: If the navel is unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zakkai: If its holes are unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Gidul: If its skull is unformed there is no child.

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul asked before Rebbi: Can one refer a placenta to something which is not a child? He said to him, one does not refer a placenta to anything which is not a child. If it came out attached to it, what then? He said to him, one does not discuss anything impossible. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One does not refer a placenta to something which is not a child, if [nevertheless] it came out attached to something else, one refers to it. Samuel asked the students of Rav: Can one refer a placenta to stillbirths? They said to him, one refers a placenta to a child and one [does not] refer(s) a placenta to stillbirths. Samuel praised them because they follow the argument [of their teacher]. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One refers a placenta to a child but one does not refer a placenta to stillbirths since it does not separate until it [was completed]. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: What you say, that one refers a placenta to a child, is because a pregnant woman does not become pregnant. Why does one not refer it to stillbirth, can a woman not have a stillbirth followed by a stillbirth? I say that she was pregnant with twins when the placenta of one amnion was crushed by the amnion of the other placenta. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One refers a placenta to a child for up to three days, and no child remains after another child for three days. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he who said this also said the other, but they disagree with one another! Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah explained it following Rav: You say that one refers a placenta to a child for up to three days if the child was born first, and you say that no child remains after another child for three days if the sole appeared first. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? The active ones come out first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if [the womb] opened for the large, it opened for the small; if it opened for the small it did not open for the large.

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul asked before Rebbi: Can one refer a placenta to something which is not a child? He said to him, one does not refer a placenta to anything which is not a child. If it came out attached to it, what then? He said to him, one does not discuss anything impossible. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One does not refer a placenta to something which is not a child, if [nevertheless] it came out attached to something else, one refers to it. Samuel asked the students of Rav: Can one refer a placenta to stillbirths? They said to him, one refers a placenta to a child and one [does not] refer(s) a placenta to stillbirths. Samuel praised them because they follow the argument [of their teacher]. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One refers a placenta to a child but one does not refer a placenta to stillbirths since it does not separate until it [was completed]. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: What you say, that one refers a placenta to a child, is because a pregnant woman does not become pregnant. Why does one not refer it to stillbirth, can a woman not have a stillbirth followed by a stillbirth? I say that she was pregnant with twins when the placenta of one amnion was crushed by the amnion of the other placenta. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One refers a placenta to a child for up to three days, and no child remains after another child for three days. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he who said this also said the other, but they disagree with one another! Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah explained it following Rav: You say that one refers a placenta to a child for up to three days if the child was born first, and you say that no child remains after another child for three days if the sole appeared first. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? The active ones come out first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if [the womb] opened for the large, it opened for the small; if it opened for the small it did not open for the large.

Rebbi Isaac bar Nahman in the name or Rebbi Eleazar: The head of a bird by most of it. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Samuel: The throat of a bird by most of it. There came a case before Rebbi Yose about [a bird whose throat] was punctured by a needle’s width. Do we not know what “most” means?

Straw that he intends not to remove, and earth without thought to removal: It is an argument between Rabbi Yose and the Rabbis, as we learn in a Mishnah: A house that he filled with straw or stones, and he nullified them: they are nullified.

If he nullified them, yes. If he did not nullify them, no! And we learn in a baraita, on this Rabbi Yose says: Straw that he intends not to remove: this is like earth without thought to intention, and it is nullified. Earth that he intends to remove: this is like straw without thought to intention, and it is not nullified.

and it has been taught, R. Yose stated: The Shechinah never descended to earth, nor did Moses or Elijah ever ascend to Heaven, as it is said, ‘The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He has given to humanity" (Psalm 115:16).

But why should we not derive it from the golden headplate (ציץ), as it was taught: The tzitz was in the shape of a plate of gold two finger-breadths broad and stretching from ear to ear, and upon it were engraved two lines, Yod and Heh above, and Kodesh [followed by a] Lamed below, and R. Eliezer son of R. Yose said, I saw it in Rome and it had Kodesh Ladonai on one line.

R. Hisda said: The bundling of one thing [to itself] is not considered bundling; of three things, it is considered bundling; of two, there is a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis, as we have learned: The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

R. Hisda said: The bundling of one thing [to itself] is not considered bundling; of three things, it is considered bundling; of two, there is a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis, as we have learned: The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

Now we should assume that since its remnants [are valid] with two, at the outset also two are valid, and that the reason he teaches three is to indicate what is the most proper observance of the commandment And since R. Yose requires three only for the most proper observance of the commandment according to the rabbis three are indispensable.

But has it not been taught: R. Yose says: If at the outset a bunch of hyssop has only two stalks or if its remnants consist of one, it is invalid, since a bunch is not valid unless at the outset it contains three and its remnants are no less than two? Reverse [the assumption]: According to R. Yose three are indispensable, according to the rabbis three are required only for the proper observance of the commandment.

But has it not been taught: R. Yose says: If at the outset a bunch of hyssop has only two stalks or if its remnants consist of one, it is invalid, since a bunch is not valid unless at the outset it contains three and its remnants are no less than two? Reverse [the assumption]: According to R. Yose three are indispensable, according to the rabbis three are required only for the proper observance of the commandment.

And if you will say that this refers only to vessels which are of importance but that ‘handles’ which are needed only as aids for the eating of the food, are made [susceptible to uncleanness] by intention and are also unmade by intention [it may be objected], But have we not learned: The handles of all foodstuffs that are threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to ritual uncleanliness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible?

That in the previous case also, he actually threshed them. If so, what is the reason of the ‘others’? They hold the same opinion as R. Yose, as we have learned, R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanness.

That in the previous case also, he actually threshed them. If so, what is the reason of the ‘others’? They hold the same opinion as R. Yose, as we have learned, R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanness.

What is this [comparison]? One can understand there the reason of R. Yose, that [the stalks] have a use according to R. Shimon ben Lakish, as R. Shimon b. Lakish said, Since one can [the more easily] turn them with the pitchfork. But in this case, what use do they have?

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘The handles of all foodstuffs that have been threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to uncleanness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible’. What does it mean ‘threshed’? R. Yohanan says: Actual threshing. R. Elazar says: Untying the bundle.

One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.

One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.

If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid. If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: R. Judah spoke according to the view of R. Yose who said that a hanging partition validates.

But in fact it is not so! Neither does R. Judah hold the opinion of R. Yose, nor does R. Yose hold the opinion of R. Judah.

But in fact it is not so! Neither does R. Judah hold the opinion of R. Yose, nor does R. Yose hold the opinion of R. Judah.

‘R. Judah does not hold the opinion of R. Yose’, for R.

Judah speaks only there with regard to the eruv of courtyards, which is of rabbinical origin, but here, with regard to the sukkah which is from the Torah, he does not [say so]. ‘Nor does R. Yose hold the opinion of R. Judah,’ for R. Yose speaks only here with regard to the Sukkah which is merely a positive commandment but with regard to Shabbat, which is a prohibition punishable by stoning, he does not say so.

Judah speaks only there with regard to the eruv of courtyards, which is of rabbinical origin, but here, with regard to the sukkah which is from the Torah, he does not [say so]. ‘Nor does R. Yose hold the opinion of R. Judah,’ for R. Yose speaks only here with regard to the Sukkah which is merely a positive commandment but with regard to Shabbat, which is a prohibition punishable by stoning, he does not say so.

And if you will says with regard to the incident which occurred at Tzippori, on whose authority was it done? Not on the authority of R. Yose, but rather on that of R. Ishmael son of R. Yose.

And if you will says with regard to the incident which occurred at Tzippori, on whose authority was it done? Not on the authority of R. Yose, but rather on that of R. Ishmael son of R. Yose.

It was objected: A matting slightly more than seven [handbreadths] is permitted as a Sukkah wall! That was taught with reference to a large Sukkah; and what does it inform us? That walls may be suspended from above downwards in agreement with R. Yose.

R. Judah b. Ila'i expounded: abruma is permitted R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said to him, Master, explain [your words]. Thus said my father, Those from such and such a place are forbidden, and from such and such a place are permitted.

R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said in the name of his father: Both the one and the other, are valid for skhakh; and R. Dosa also ruled according to his view.

And they brought oxen, upon whose back were placed doors, and the children sat upon them with stone cups in their hands. ... When they reached the Shiloah they went down into the water and filled them, then ascended and at again [on the doors]. R. Yose said, [Each child] used to let [his cup] down and fill it from his place because of [the fear of] a grave in the depths.

3) If one was above and the other below: Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah said, we regard the upper one as though it were lower down or the lower one as though it were higher, provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground] nor the lower one less than ten [handbreadths from the ground]. From which it follows that if both of them were within twenty [cubits] we do apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’ even though none of them is a handbreadth [wide]?

If he used an animal as a wall of the Sukkah: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid, for R. Meir used to say, Whatever contains the breath of life cannot be used as a wall for a Sukkah, nor a side-post for an alley nor boards around wells, nor a covering stone for a grave n the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said, Nor may a get be written upon it.

The Master said: ‘In the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said: Nor may a get be written upon it’ What is the reason for R. Yose the Galilean? As it has been taught: [Scripture says], A scroll. I know only [that] a scroll [is valid], how do I know to include any other material? Scripture says, "And he wrote to her"

The Master said: ‘In the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said: Nor may a get be written upon it’ What is the reason for R. Yose the Galilean? As it has been taught: [Scripture says], A scroll. I know only [that] a scroll [is valid], how do I know to include any other material? Scripture says, "And he wrote to her"

And from where does R. Yose the Galilean derive this? From [the words], ‘a scroll of divorce’; the scroll divorces and nothing else. And the others?

And one who is involved in a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah comes out from here? It comes from there, as it is taught in a Baraita: (Numbers 9:6) "There were people that were impure by the flesh of man..." Those people, who were they? They were the carriers of Yosef's body, the words of Rabbi Yose HaGlili.

It has been taught: R. Hanania b. Akavya said: Scribes writing [Torah] scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot, their agents and their agents’ agents, and all who are engaged in holy work including sellers of blue [for tzitzit] are exempt from the obligation of prayer and tefillin and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah, to confirm the words of R. Yose the Galilean, for R. Yose the Galilean used to say: He who is occupied with the performance of a mitzvah is [at that time] exempt from other mitzvot

It has been taught: R. Hanania b. Akavya said: Scribes writing [Torah] scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot, their agents and their agents’ agents, and all who are engaged in holy work including sellers of blue [for tzitzit] are exempt from the obligation of prayer and tefillin and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah, to confirm the words of R. Yose the Galilean, for R. Yose the Galilean used to say: He who is occupied with the performance of a mitzvah is [at that time] exempt from other mitzvot

Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah]. Our Rabbis taught, The sick one spoken of here is not [only] one who sick and is in danger, but also one who is sick but not in danger, even one who has a pain in his eye or a pain in his head. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said: On one occasion I had a pain in my eye in Caesarea and R. Yose Berebi permitted me and my attendants to sleep outside the Sukkah.

Our Rabbis taught: One who wishes to go to sleep by day, if he wants he may remove [his tefillin] and if he wants he may leave them on. At night, he must remove them and he may not leave them on, the words of R. Natan. R. Yose said Youth must always remove them and never leave them on, for they are regular in uncleanness.

Shall we say that R. Yose is of the opinion that a man who has seminal emission may not wear his tefillin? Abaye answered: We are dealing here with the case of young men in the company of their wives, lest they grow accustomed to the practice.

Our Rabbis taught: It once happened to Rabbi Eliezer, that he rested in the upper Galilee, and they asked him about thirty laws of the laws of Sukkah. For twelve, he said to them "I know (lit. I have heard)," and for eighteen, he said to them "I do not know." Rabbi Yose the son of Rabbi Yehudah says, "The matters are switched; for eighteen, he said to them "I know," and for twelve, he said to them "I do not know."

Come and hear: "And [regarding] a big [Etrog, the maximum is small enough] so that he can hold two in his one hand; the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says, 'Even [if the Etrog is so big that he can only hold] one in his two hands.'" What is the reasoning [of Rabbi Yehudah]? Is it not because he requires beauty? No. Seeing as Rabba said, "The Lulav [is held] the right [hand] and the Etrog is in the left." Sometimes, they will be switched, and so you will flip them, and [if the Etrog is as large as Rabbi Yose allows,] you will invalidate it [by dropping it and breaking the Pitom].

Come and hear: "And [regarding] a big [Etrog, the maximum is small enough] so that he can hold two in his one hand; the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says, 'Even [if the Etrog is so big that he can only hold] one in his two hands.'" What is the reasoning [of Rabbi Yehudah]? Is it not because he requires beauty? No. Seeing as Rabba said, "The Lulav [is held] the right [hand] and the Etrog is in the left." Sometimes, they will be switched, and so you will flip them, and [if the Etrog is as large as Rabbi Yose allows,] you will invalidate it [by dropping it and breaking the Pitom].

7) If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. 8) If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. 9) An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. 10) An etrog which is green as a leek: a) Rabbi Meir declares it valid b) And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid 11) The minimum size of an etrog: a) Rabbi Meir says: the size of a nut. b) Rabbi Judah says: the size of an egg. 12) The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah. a) Rabbi Yose says, even one that can only be held with his two hands.

The maximum size etc. It was taught: R. Yose said: It happened with R. Akiva that he came to synagogue with his etrog on his shoulder. R. Judah said to him: Is this a proof? They in fact said to him, That etrog is not goodly

R. Yohanan said: He brings them to and fro to Him to whom the four directions belong, and up and down to Him to whom Heaven and Earth belong. In the west (Eretz Yisrael) they taught us thus: R. Hama b. Ukba said in the name of R. Yose son of R. Hanina: He waves them to and fro in order to stop harmful winds; up and down, in order to stop harmful dews. R. Yose b. Abin and some say R. Yose b. Zevila said: This implies that

R. Yohanan said: He brings them to and fro to Him to whom the four directions belong, and up and down to Him to whom Heaven and Earth belong. In the west (Eretz Yisrael) they taught us thus: R. Hama b. Ukba said in the name of R. Yose son of R. Hanina: He waves them to and fro in order to stop harmful winds; up and down, in order to stop harmful dews. R. Yose b. Abin and some say R. Yose b. Zevila said: This implies that

R. Yohanan said: He brings them to and fro to Him to whom the four directions belong, and up and down to Him to whom Heaven and Earth belong. In the west (Eretz Yisrael) they taught us thus: R. Hama b. Ukba said in the name of R. Yose son of R. Hanina: He waves them to and fro in order to stop harmful winds; up and down, in order to stop harmful dews. R. Yose b. Abin and some say R. Yose b. Zevila said: This implies that

He holds the opinion as this (the following) Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Yose stated: Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders that the tithing of the etrog depends upon [the time of its] picking. But our Rabbis voted in Usha and said [that this applies] both to tithing and the Sabbatical Year.

And the question of whether [the restrictions of the Sabbatical Year apply to] wood that is used for heating is a dispute between Tannas, as it has been taught: The produce of the Sabbatical Year may not be used either for steeping or for washing.R. Yose say: they may be so used.

What is the reason of the first Tanna? Because Scripture says “for food,”[implying] but not for steeping or for washing. What is the reason of R. Yose? — Because Scripture says, “for you” [implying], for all your needs, even for steeping and for washing. But, according to the first Tanna, is it not written, “for you? That “for you” is to compare it with “for food:” Such that its benefit comes at the same time as its consumption, thus excluding [produce used for] steeping and washing the benefit from which comes after their consumption.

But according to R. Yose, is it not written “for food”? He needs that phrase to deduce, “for food”, but not for a salve, as it has been taught, “for food”, but not for a salve. You say “for food” but not for a salve; why not say, “[for food”] but not for washing? When it says, “for you” washing is included. So how then do I understand, “for food”? “For food”, but not for a salve. But what reason did you see for including washing and excluding a salve?

Who is the author of that [statement] which our Rabbis taught: “for food” but not for a salve, “for food”, but not for perfume, “for food” but not for an emetic. Who does this agree with? With R. Yose, for if it were the Rabbis, they also exclude steeping and washing.

But what does R. Yohanan do with the verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor"? He requires it in accordance with the statement of R. Yose b. Hanina, as it has been taught, R. Yose b. Hanina said: Come and see how serious is [even] the dust of the Sabbatical Year. A man merely trades with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, in the end he sells his movable property and his clothes, as it is said, "In this year of Jubilee you shall return, each man to his possessions" and then comes immediately, "And if you sell something to your neighbor etc."

But what does R. Yohanan do with the verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor"? He requires it in accordance with the statement of R. Yose b. Hanina, as it has been taught, R. Yose b. Hanina said: Come and see how serious is [even] the dust of the Sabbatical Year. A man merely trades with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, in the end he sells his movable property and his clothes, as it is said, "In this year of Jubilee you shall return, each man to his possessions" and then comes immediately, "And if you sell something to your neighbor etc."

1) If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. 2) The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” 3) But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow. 4) Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].

R. Yose says: If the first day of the festival [fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence of a religious act]. Abaye said:

R. Huna said: R. Yose used to say: A bird [offered as] a burnt-offering that was found among other fowls and [the priest] thought that it was a bird sin-offering, and ate it, he is exempt. What does he teach us by this ruling? That one who errs in connection with a mitzvah is exempt? But this is the same [as the Mishnah]?

They objected: R. Yose says: One who slaughters a daily offering which has not been properly examined on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering and another daily offering must be offered.

It has been taught, R. Yose says The cavity of the pits descends to the abyss, for it is said, “Let me sing of my beloved, a song of my lover for his vineyard. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. And he dug it, and cleared it of stones, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a vat therein” (Isaiah 5:1). “And planted it with the choicest vine” refers to the Temple; “and built a tower in the midst of it” refers to the altar; ‘and also hewed out a vat therein’, refers to the pits.

Our Rabbis taught: The [playing of the] flute overrides the Shabbat, the words of R. Yose bar Judah. But the Sages say: It does not override even the Festival. R. Yoseph said: The dispute concerns only the song that accompanied the sacrifices, since R. Yose holds that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument, so it is considered Temple service and it overrides the Shabbat, whereas the Rabbis hold that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the singing by voice, so the [playing of the instruments] is not considered Temple service and does not, therefore, override Shabbat But with regard to the singing at the Festival of Water-Drawing, all agree that it is a just an expression of rejoicing and does not, therefore, override the Sabbath.

Our Rabbis taught: The [playing of the] flute overrides the Shabbat, the words of R. Yose bar Judah. But the Sages say: It does not override even the Festival. R. Yoseph said: The dispute concerns only the song that accompanied the sacrifices, since R. Yose holds that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument, so it is considered Temple service and it overrides the Shabbat, whereas the Rabbis hold that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the singing by voice, so the [playing of the instruments] is not considered Temple service and does not, therefore, override Shabbat But with regard to the singing at the Festival of Water-Drawing, all agree that it is a just an expression of rejoicing and does not, therefore, override the Sabbath.

R. Yoseph said: From where do I derive that the dispute concerns only [the flute that accompanies the sacrifices]? From that which has been taught: Ministering vessels made of wood: Rabbi declares them invalid and R. Yose b. Judah declares them valid. Now do they not differ on this: the one who declares them valid is of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument and [its validity may, therefore,] be deduced from that of the reed-flute of Moses. While he who holds them to be invalid is of the opinion that the essential feature of the Temple music is the vocal singing and its validity, therefore, cannot be deduced from that of the reed-flute of Moses?

And if you want you may say that all are in agreement that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the vocal singing, and that we do not deduce the possible from the impossible, but in this case they differ on the question whether, in making the deduction concerning the candlestick, we apply the principle of “the general and the particular” or the rule of “inclusion and exclusion.” Rabbi applies the principle of “the general and the particular” while R. Yose b. Judah applies the principle of “exclusion and inclusion.”

R. Yose b. Judah applies the principle of ‘inclusion and exclusion [thus:] “And you shall make a candlestick” is an inclusion, “of pure gold” is an exclusion, “of beaten work shall the candlestick be made” is again an inclusion. It includes, then excludes, then includes, in which case it includes everything. What does it include? All materials, and what does it exclude? [Only] earthenware.

This dispute is like the one between the following Tannas as we have learned: [The flute players in the Temple] were the slaves of the priests, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose says: They were the families of Beth Ha-Pegarim, and Beth Zipporia who hailed from Emmaus and were married into the priestly stock.

But do you really think this? What then does R. Yose really hold? If he is of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the singing, then even slaves [should be allowed to play the instruments], and if he is of the opinion that the essential feature was the instrument, then only Levites should [be allowed to play] but not Israelites?

R. Yirmiyah b. Abba said that the dispute concerns only the music at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, since R. Yose b. Judah holds that even an added expression of rejoicing overrides the Shabbat, while the Rabbis hold that an added expression of rejoicing does not override [either] the Shabbat [or the Festival], but as regards the music which accompanied the sacrifices, all agree that it is [an integral part of] the worship and it overrides the Shabbat.

They raised an objection: [It was taught:] The music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides Shabbat, the words of R. Yose b. Judah. The sages, however, rule that it does not override even the Festival. Is not this a refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

R. Joseph could answer you: They dispute concerning the music that accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah and the same applies also to [that which accompanied] the sacrifices, and the reason that they disagree with regard to the Simchat Bet Hashoevah was in order to inform you of the extent of the view of R. Yose b. Judah, that even the music of the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides [the Shabbat].

But didn’t we teach: This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival day. This [playing] does not override the Shabbat, but the playing which accompanied the sacrifices does override [the Shabbat]? Now whose view is it? If you were to say that it is that of R. Yose b. Judah, did he not state that the playing which accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah also overrides Shabbat? Consequently it must be, the view of the Rabbis, and thus there is a double refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation.

and therefore attributed the statement in the baraita to R. Yose son of R. Judah.

In any case, in places where they do go to town on Monday and Thursday it is read [on the earlier dates] even in these times? He accordingly ascribed the statement in the baraita to R. Yose son of R. Judah.

R. Ashi had heard that some transmit the statement in the name of R. Judah and some transmit it in the name of R. Yose son of R. Judah, and to avoid making R. Judah contradict himself he said that the one who ascribed the statement to R. Judah was not [reporting] accurately, while the one who ascribed it to R. Yose son of Judah was [reporting] accurately.

R. Ashi had heard that some transmit the statement in the name of R. Judah and some transmit it in the name of R. Yose son of R. Judah, and to avoid making R. Judah contradict himself he said that the one who ascribed the statement to R. Judah was not [reporting] accurately, while the one who ascribed it to R. Yose son of Judah was [reporting] accurately.

Now that you have said that the words “city and city, town and town” are there for a derashah, what is the purpose of the words “family and family” [in the same verse]?. Yose b. Hanina replied: This refers to the families of the priests and Levites, that they should stop their [Temple] service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah.

Rava said: There is no question in my mind that, as between the Temple service and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, for the reason given by R. Yose b. Hanina. As between the study of the Torah and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, since the members of the house of Rabbi based themselves [on the statement of R. Yose].

Rava said: There is no question in my mind that, as between the Temple service and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, for the reason given by R. Yose b. Hanina. As between the study of the Torah and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, since the members of the house of Rabbi based themselves [on the statement of R. Yose].

Joshua b. Levi also said: A city which has been laid waste and afterwards settled is reckoned as a city. What is meant by “laid waste”? If you say, that its walls have been destroyed, in which case if it became settled it is reckoned as a city but otherwise not? But has it not been taught: R. Elazar son of R. Yose says: [The text says], “which has a wall” [which implies that it is to be reckoned as a city] even though it does not have a wall now, provided it had one previously?

If it falls on Friday etc. Whom does our Mishnah follow? [You may say], either Rabbi or R. Yose.

What source is R. Yose? As it has been taught: If it falls on Friday, walled cities and villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and large towns read on the day itself. Yose said: Walled cities do not read before towns, but both read on the day itself.

What source is R. Yose? As it has been taught: If it falls on Friday, walled cities and villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and large towns read on the day itself. Yose said: Walled cities do not read before towns, but both read on the day itself.

What is R. Yose’s reason? [It says], “every year”: just as every years walled cities do not read before towns, so too here walled cities should not read before towns.