The Babylonian Talmud (abridged)

REGULATIONS CONCERNING EATABLES AND BEVERAGES: PREPARATIONS FROM THE FIRST DAY OF FESTIVALS TO THE SECOND, FROM THE FESTIVALS TO THE SABBATH, AND VICE VERSA.

MISHNA: An egg laid on a festival may be eaten on the same day. So say the school of Shammai; the school of Hillel, however, say it must not. The school of Shammai say that leaven the size of an olive and leavened bread the size of a date (are to be removed before Passover), but the school of Hillel say that both must be removed when of the size of an olive only. If wild game or fowl is to be slaughtered on a festival, the school of Shammai say one should dig up (the earth) with a spade and cover the blood, but the school of Hillel forbid the killing unless loose earth had been prepared for that purpose the day before. Both schools, however, agree that if the killing had been done, one may loosen some earth and cover the blood with it, for ashes are always ready in the hearth.

GEMARA: To what kind of hen does the Mishna refer? If to a hen designed for eating, why then does the school of Hillel prohibit the eating of the egg? Is it not a part of the eatables which were prepared (for the festival)? If to a hen kept for laying eggs only, what is the reason of the school of Shammai, who permit to eat it? Is this not Muktzah (designation)? Should we suppose that the school of Shammai do not hold the theory of Muktzah, even then the eating of it could not be permitted, as it is a new-born thing, and even one who denies the theory of Muktzah should hold to the theory of Nolad (new-born thing). Nay, R. Na'hman has declared that one who denies the theory of Muktzah denies also the theory of Nolad.

If so, then the school of Shammai will be in accordance with R. Simeon (who denies the theory of Muktzah), and the school of Hillel will be in accordance with R. Jehudah (who holds it); but this would not be the case, because did not R. Na'hman state (in Tract Sabbath) that the school of Hillel are always in accordance with R. Simeon and the school of Shammai with R. Jehudah? R. Na'hman may say: Because we found an anonymous Mishna (in Tract Sabbath, p. 375) which is in accordance with R. Simeon, therefore he declares that concerning the Sabbath the school of Hillel hold with R. Simeon, and concerning the festivals we found an anonymous Mishna (Sabbath, p. 375) in accordance with R. Jehudah, therefore he declares that the school of Hillel are in accordance with R. Jehudah, who is more rigorous.

Let us see: Who makes the Mishna anonymous? Rabbi (its editor). Why does he make it anonymous in regard to Sabbath in accordance with R. Simeon, and in regard to festivals (makes it anonymous) according to R. Jehudah? This is no question. Relating to Sabbath, which is so rigorous that it has a capital punishment and there is no fear that anyone will dare to disregard its rules, therefore Rabbi made an anonymous Mishna in accordance with the more lenient R. Simeon; but relating to festivals, which have no capital punishment at all, and the rules are lenient, for fear that otherwise they may be disregarded, Rabbi made an anonymous Mishna in accordance with R. Jehudah.

Now, then, if the Mishna means a hen which is kept for laying eggs, and the reason that the school of Hillel prohibit it, is because the egg is Muktzah, why do they not differ about the hen itself? (whether it is permitted to eat it or not). Therefore said Rabba: The Mishna refers to a hen kept for eating, and to a festival which falls after Sabbath; and the teaching of the school of Hillel is not for the reason of Muktzah, but of preparation; i.e., an egg which is laid to-day Rabba is certain that it was ripe the preceding day, and it is in accordance with his theory, thus: It is written [Ex. xvi. 5]: "And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, when they prepare what they shall have brought in"; i.e., only on a week-day shall anything be prepared for the Sabbath or for festivals, but nothing should be prepared on a festival for the Sabbath, and vice versa.

Said Abayi to Rabba: Let it then be permitted on a festival which does not come after Sabbath, and he answered: It is as a precautionary measure for the festival which falls after Sabbath. Said Abayi again: Let it then be permitted on a Sabbath, and he rejoined again: It is a precautionary measure for the Sabbath which falls after a festival. Said Abayi again: Do we take such precautionary measures? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: If one kills a hen on a festival and finds in it ripe eggs, he is permitted to eat them? Now, if such precautionary measures are taken, why should not the same precautionary measure be taken for the above eggs, for fear lest one eat new-laid eggs? Rabba again rejoined: Ripe eggs in the entrails of a hen are not a usual occurrence, and for an unusual occurrence no precautionary measures are taken.

R. Joseph, however, said that (the prohibition of eating an egg from a hen kept for eating) is as a precautionary measure lest one may eat fruit which has fallen from a tree on Sabbath. R. Itz'hak said that the precautionary measure is taken lest one drink the beverages which flow from a tree on Sabbath. From the following teaching we learn that R. Johanan agrees with R. Joseph's opinion, viz.: R. Johanan found R. Jehudah contradicting himself, namely: We have learned in a Mishna in Sabbath, one may not press fruit to derive beverage from it; and even if the beverage flowed of itself, it is prohibited. R. Jehudah, however, said: If the fruit was for the purpose of eating, the beverage which flows from it is permitted, and if the fruit was for beverage, the latter is not permitted. From this we see that although the beverage which flows from the fruit was not prepared on the preceding day, its use is nevertheless permitted; and in another place we find that the same R. Jehudah said, "that an egg which was laid on one festival day may be eaten on the second festival day"--on the second, but not on the first. This contradicts his first dictum, that the beverage may be used on the same day. And R. Johanan answered about this contradiction thus: Say, that it is on the contrary, that not R. Jehudah permits to drink the beverage, but the first Tana in the above Mishna. Now, when R. Johanan contradicted the teaching concerning the beverage and the egg, we must say that the prohibition of both is for one and the same reason.

Rabbina the son of R. Ula said: It is not so. R. Jehudah, who says that the egg must be eaten on the second day, and not on the first, refers to a case where the hen was kept for laying eggs only, and this is according to his theory of Muktzah.

An objection was raised from the following Boraitha: An egg which was laid on Sabbath or on a festival day must not be handled to cover a vessel with it, or to support the foot of a bed, with it. It is permitted, however, to cover it with a vessel to prevent it from breaking. If it is doubtful whether the egg was laid on that day or not, it is also disallowed to use it. Should it become mixed in even with a thousand eggs, all the eggs are prohibited to be used on that day. It is right according to Rabba's teaching, who says that when the egg is prohibited for the reason of preparation, which is biblical, therefore a doubtful egg must not be used because it is doubtful according to a biblical law, and all doubts about biblical ordinances must be decided more rigorously; but according to R. Joseph and R. Itz'hak, who say that it is prohibited only as a precautionary measure, why then is it not allowed to use the doubtful egg that is so only according to a rabbinical ordinance, and all doubts concerning rabbinical ordinances must be decided more leniently? The latter part of the Boraitha means that it was doubtful whether it was laid by a hen biblically forbidden to be eaten (e.g., sick or crippled), If it is so, how will the latter part of this Boraitha, "if it were mixed in even with a thousand eggs, all are prohibited," be explained? It would be right if there were a doubt whether it was laid on a week-day or on a festival, where the prohibition is temporary (because on the morrow all may be eaten); and there is a rule when anything is temporarily prohibited, if it is mixed in with a thousand, the prohibition remains, but if the egg was doubtful to be from a biblically forbidden hen (in which case the prohibition remains in force always), then if it is mixed in with other eggs, why should they all be invalid? Let it be ignored as against the majority? (that one egg be removed, and the remaining should be used). The assumption that an egg is a thing of value, and therefore must not be ignored, would apply only to those who say that all things usually counted must not be ignored; but what can be said to those who say that only things which are always sure to be counted may be ignored? (This objection remains.)

R. Ashi said: The meaning of "doubtfulness" in the Boraitha is, whether it is a week or festival day, it is nevertheless prohibited to use it, although according to R. Joseph and R. Itz'hak it is only a rabbinical doubt, because the prohibition is only temporary, and in case of a temporary prohibition even a rabbinical one must wait till the prohibition is over.

We have learned in a Boraitha: Anonymous teachers in the name of R. Eliezer said that the egg in question may be eaten together with the hen that laid it. To what case does the Boraitha refer? If the hen is kept for eating, then it is self-evident; if it is a hen kept for laying eggs, then both are not allowed to be used. Said R. Zera: The Boraitha means to say that the egg can only then be eaten when the hen which laid it was also eaten. Flow shall it be explained? Said Abayi: In case the hen was bought not for any definite purpose, if it was slaughtered and prepared, then it is clear that it was bought for the festivals, and the egg may also be used; but if the hen is kept alive, then it is clear that it was bought with the intention to keep it for laying eggs, and then it must not be used. R. Mari, however, said that the Boraitha meant to say nothing, but merely exaggerated (i.e., the egg may be eaten in any manner), as we have learned in the following Tosephta: A new-laid egg may be eaten with the hen that laid it, and a new-born pullet with its shell. As the shell cannot be used and is only an exaggeration, so is it also meant with the egg and the hen which laid it.

It was taught: If Sabbath fell after a festival, or vice versa, anything born on one of these days must not be used on the other. So said Rabh. R. Johanan, however, allowed it to be used on the morrow.

Shall we assume that Rabh holds that both are of one and the same sanctitude? Did not Rabh say that the Halakha prevails according to the four old sages who are in accordance with R. Eliezer, who said that Sabbath and the festivals are of different sanctitudes? Nay, here they do not differ concerning the sanctitudes, but as to the law of preparation mentioned above in the name of Rabba. Rabh is in accordance with this theory and R. Johanan is not.

The Tanaim of the following Tosephta differ on the same point: If an egg was laid on the Sabbath, it may be eaten on the festival, and vice versa. R. Jehudah in the name of R. Eliezer, however, said, that there is still a difference of opinion among the schools of Shammai and Hillel. According to the former it may, and according to the latter it may not be eaten.

The householder of R. Adda b. Ahabah had eggs which were laid on a festival preceding the Sabbath; he came to him and inquired whether it is permitted to roast them that day, to be eaten on the morrow. He answered: What is thy question P Because thou thinkest that when Rabh and R. Johanan differ the Halakha prevails according to the latter; yet even R. Johanan permits only to sip the egg when raw on the morrow, but he never permitted to handle it on the same day.

The householder where R. Papa lived, according to others another man, had eggs which were laid on a Sabbath preceding a festival, and he asked R. Papa if they could be eaten on the morrow, and R. Papa answered him: Leave it until to-morrow and come again, because Rabh did not use an interpreter on a festival day after meals to decide questions belonging to the next day, for fear, perhaps, that he had drunk more than a quarter of a lug of wine. When he came on the next day R. Papa said to him: If I had decided the question yesterday, when I was a little lightheaded, I would have erred, and would have decided according to R. Johanan, as the rule is where Rabh and R. Johanan differ, the Halakha prevails always according to R. Johanan, and this would not be right, because Rabha said that the case in question is one of the three where the Halakha prevails according to Rabh, both when he is lenient as well as rigorous.

R. Johanan said: Wood which falls from a tree on Sabbath must not be used on the following festival day; and if it would be asked what is the difference between the wood and the egg, it can be said that the egg can be used while raw just after it has been laid, and if left until the next day, because it must not be used on the same day; but if the wood will be used just after Sabbath is over, one might say that the use of the wood was allowed on the same day, and that it was not used because it was prohibited to make a fire on Sabbath.

R. Mathna said: If wood had fallen down from a tree directly into an oven on a festival day, one may add wood which had been prepared on the preceding day and burn it; but is not this handling a prohibited thing? To this the answer is, because the bulk of the wood may be handled, the rest is ignored. But did he not ignore the prohibited wood intentionally? and a Mishna teaches that a prohibited thing must not be ignored on purpose. This, however, is only true of a biblical prohibition, but not of a rabbinical. But according to R. Ashi, who said that a thing which is prohibited only temporarily, cannot be ignored by any means, what can be said? This is when the prohibited thing is preserved; but here, when the wood is to be destroyed by fire, it is different.

It was taught about the two festival days in exile: Rabh said if anything was born on the first day, it may be eaten on the morrow, but R. Assi says it must not. Said R. Zera: It seems to me that R. Assi is correct in his opinion, because in our time the time of the calendar is known to us, and nevertheless we hold in exile two days of festival (consequently we must hold all the ordinances which were ordained in that time). Abayi, however, said: It seems to me that Rabh is correct in his opinion, and our keeping of two days of festival in exile is merely because a message was sent to us from the West: Take heed of the customs of your ancestors, as it can happen that the government might forbid the keeping of festivals, and the exact date might be forgotten (after the government should retract the command).

It was taught: Rabh and Samuel both said of the two festival days of New Year: Something born on the first day must not be used on the other.

Rabha said: From the day of the ordinance of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, an egg which is laid on the first day of the New Year festival may be eaten on the next day. Said Abayi to him: Did not Rabh and Samuel both say that it is not allowed? Rejoined Rabha: I say to you that of Johanan b. Zakkai, and you mention Rabh and Samuel to me [says; the Gemara: Do really Rabh and Samuel contradict a Mishna P Nay, it presents no difficulty: The ordinance of Johanan b. Zakkai was only for Palestine, but Rabh and Samuel speak for the exile].

R. Joseph, however, said even after the ordinance of Johanan b. Zakkai the prohibition of the egg remains in force, because the prohibition has been ordained by the vote of a majority of sages, and everything that has been ordained by a majority some time ago, must again be voted by a majority. Said Abayi to him: Did the sages in Johanan b. Zakkai's time discuss about an egg? They discussed only about the witnesses of the new moon. When it was ordained that the witnesses should not be received on the 30th day (consequently two days were kept festival), the egg was prohibited, but after that, when it was again allowed to receive the witnesses the entire 30th day, in consequence holiday was kept only one day, and the egg could not be any longer prohibited.

R. Ada and R. Shalman [both from the city of Khaluchith] said: The reason why the egg is prohibited even after the ordinance of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, is because the Temple will soon be rebuilt, and then one may say the last year, have we not eaten the second day of the festival the egg that was laid on the first day? We will do the same now, and they will not know that the last year had two separate sanctitudes; and now, when the Temple is built, the two days are as one long day of one and the same sacredness.

If it is so, let the witnesses who come to testify about the new moon, also not be received? because soon will the Temple be rebuilt, and they will say: Did we not receive the last year the whole 30th day? The same will we do now? What comparison is there? Only the court (Beth Din) can receive the testimony of the witnesses, but eating an egg appertains to the common people. Rabha, however, said: That even after the ordinances of R. Johanan b. Zakkai the egg is prohibited for this reason: Would not R. Johanan b. Zakkai himself agree that if the witnesses were coming after the Min'ha prayer (in the afternoon), both the 30th day and the morrow would be kept sacred? (Therefore we who are at a great distance from Palestine, and do not know when the witnesses appeared, must keep both days holy, and as of one kind of sacredness; in consequence an egg laid cannot be eaten on what is considered as the same day.)

Rabha said again: The Halakha prevails according to Rabh in these three ordinances, both when he is lenient and rigorous (namely: 1. An egg laid on a Sabbath preceding festival day or on a festival day preceding a Sabbath may be eaten on the morrow. 2. The same is the case with the two festival days in exile. 3. But if it m, as laid on the first day of the two New Year's days, it must not be eaten).

Rabha said: The preparing for the burial of a dead body on the first day of the exile festival must be done by Gentiles; but on the second day Israelites may do it, even if it is New Year. With a new-born thing, however, in the two days of New Year it is different (because these two days are considered as of one sacredness). The sages of Nehardai, however, said the case is the same with a new-born thing also. Said Mar Zutra: The law concerning burial on holidays refers to a case when the corpse had been lying some time and there is fear of corruption; but if it had just died it may lie until after the holidays and then be interred. R. Ashi, however, said: Even if it has just died it can be buried on the same day, as the sages considered the second day of a festival a week-day in relation to a dead body, and it is allowed even to cut myrtle for it and prepare (a nice cloak for him besides) the shrouds.

Rabbina was sitting in the presence of R. Ashi on the first day of New Year, and noticed that he was downcast. He asked him: Why is the Master downcast? R. Ashi answered: Because I have not made a combining of cookery (Erub Tabshilin; ix., the third day of the new year was a Sabbath, and it was necessary to prepare on the second day of New Year for the Sabbath by making a "combining of cookery"). Said Rabbina to him: Let Master make it to-day. Did not Rabha say that whoever forgot to make a combining on the eve of a festival, is permitted to make it on the first day? And R. Ashi rejoined: Rabha allowed it only on the exile festival day, but not on the two days of New Year. Said Rabbina again: Did not the sages of Neherdai decide that the same is the case with New Year's day? R. Mordecai answered to Rabbina: I have heard Master plainly declare that he did not agree with the sages of Neherdai (Master means R. Ashi). Therefore do not molest him with this question.

The rabbis taught: A pullet which was born on a festival must not be eaten on the same day. R. Eliezer ben Jacob said even on a week-day it is not allowed to eat it on the same day, because its eyes are not yet open. We also learn in the following Boraitha: It is written [Lev. xi. 22]: "All flying insects that walk upon four legs shall be an abomination to you." By "all" it is meant to add the pullet whose eyes are not as yet open.

R. Huna said in the name of Rabh: An egg becomes ripe as soon as it is laid, What does Rabh mean to teach us by this statement? Shall we assume that he meant to say that it becomes ripe enough to be eaten with milk, which would not be the case if the egg were found in the entrails of a hen? Did not a Boraitha say: He who kills a hen and finds in it ripe eggs may eat them with milk? Shall we assume that Rabh means to teach us that when it is laid on a festival it may be eaten on that same day; but how if it were found in the entrails of a hen, would it not be allowed to eat it on a festival? Did not a Boraitha say that if ripe eggs are found in the hen on a festival day, they may be eaten? If it be said that Rabh means to teach us what the Boraitha has added to the Mishna (this cannot be said either, because) we have learned in the Mishna, an egg laid on a festival the school of Shammai permit to be eaten, etc. We see therefore that the above schools differed only about an egg laid already, but not about an egg found in the entrails of a hen and it cannot be said of the school of Hillel that they prohibited this, for then the above Boraitha which allows this would not be in accordance with any of the schools.

Rabh comes to teach us that only an egg which is laid is ripe to be put under a hen for hatching; but an egg which is found in the entrails of a hen, even if it were ripe, cannot be used for hatching, as it cannot breed pullets.

And the difference is in matters of buying and selling (i.e., if one buy eggs for hatching and he was given eggs which were found in the entrails of a lien, the seller must return the money to him). As it happened once, one came to the market and asked for new-laid eggs and he was given eggs which were found in a killed hen. When the case was brought before R. Amai he decided that the sale was null and void and the seller must return the money. Is that not self-evident? One may say that when the buyer asked for new-laid eggs he meant eggs for eating, and he who sold him the eggs which were found in the killed hen has only to return to the buyer the difference between the value of a new-laid egg and one found in a killed hen. Therefore he comes to teach us that it is not so, but that the whole sale is null and void and the seller must return the money.

It happened, also, that one came to the market and asked for eggs of a hen which had paired with a cock, and he was given eggs of a hen which laid them by warming herself by scratching the earth; and when this case was also brought before R. Amai, he made the sale null and void for the same reason.

And if you wish, we will explain (the above saying of R. Huna in the name of Rabh), that an egg is ripe as soon as it is laid, means, that as soon as the greater part of it is out of the body of the hen, it is considered ripe; and this will be in accordance with R. Johanan, who said that an egg, of which the greater part was out on the eve of a festival, and it slipped back, and came out on the festival, it might be eaten the same day. And still others say, that Rabh means to teach that when the egg is wholly out then it is ripe, 'but not otherwise, the reverse of the opinion of R. Johanan.

The text says: When one has killed a hen and found ripe eggs in it, they may be eaten with milk. R. Jacob, however, said: When the egg is as yet covered with veins, it must not be eaten with milk.

The rabbis taught: All the females which have communication with their males in the day-time only, give also birth in the day-time only; and those which have communication in the night-time only, give also birth in the night-time only. Those, however, which have communication at all times, give birth also at all times. Those that have communication in the day-time only: e.g., a hen; and in the night only, e.g., a bat; and at all times, e.g., man and all animals similar to him.

To what purpose did the Master say all this? This is necessary to the following Halakha: R. Mari the son of R. Cahana says: One who has searched a chicken-coop on the eve of a festival at twilight, and does not find any eggs, and on the morrow before sunrise does find one, it may be eaten the same day (as it could not have been laid during the night). But did he not search the day before? Say, then, he did not search thoroughly; and even if he did search thoroughly, it is possible that at that time the greater part of the egg came out and slipped back again; and this is in accordance with what is stated above in the name of R. Johanan.

This is not so? For did not R. Jose b. Saul say in the name of Rabh: If one has searched a chicken-coop on the eve of a festival at twilight, and does not find any eggs in it, and on the morrow he finds one, it must not be used? He has reference to a hen which bears by scratching the earth (and such a hen may lay even at night). If it is so, say in the case of R. Mari also that the egg which was found in the morning was laid by such a hen.

There is the case where a male was in the coop. Even then, can it not happen that a hen may scratch the earth? Said Rabina: It is certain that when there is a male, no hen scratches the earth for the purpose of bearing. And at what distance in the neighborhood must the cock be? Said R. Gamda in the name of Rabh: As far as she can hear his voice in the day-time.

R. Mari, according to his decision, has decided a case (in which it was searched on the eve of a festival and nothing found in it, but an egg was found on the morrow, and there was no cock at) a distance of sixty houses.

When there is a stream between, the hen does not cross it, but she crosses a bridge; neither does she cross over a plank. It happened once that a hen crossed over a plank.

"The school of Shammai say that leaven the size of an olive," etc. What is the reason of their teaching? They maintain if the same size would be for leaven and leavened bread, why did the Torah need mention leaven at all? Let it have been written "leavened bread," and it would be known from an a fortiori conclusion that leaven the size of an olive is prohibited (i.e., as leavened bread, which is not as sour as leaven itself, one is culpable if he eats the size of an olive, so much the more, leaven itself the same size). Now, when the law mentioned leaven and leavened bread separately it is only to teach us that their sizes are different (leaven the size of an olive and leavened bread the size of a date). The school of Hillel, however, maintain that both are needed, because if leaven only were mentioned, one might say that because leaven is very sour, it must not be used, but leavened bread, which is not so sour, one may eat; if leavened bread only were mentioned, one could say that leavened bread which is fit to be eaten is prohibited, but leaven itself which is not fit for eating one is not culpable if he eats; therefore leaven is also mentioned.

We have learned also in a Boraitha: It is written [Ex. xiii. 7]: "And there shall not be seen with thee any unleavened bread, neither shall there be seen with thee any leaven in all thy boundaries." This is the point of difference between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel: The first says, leaven the size of an olive and leavened bread the size of a date, and according to the latter, both are of the size of an olive.

"When a person has killed," etc. If one has killed already, but may he not commence it? Said Rabha: The Mishna meant to say that if a person wishes to slaughter an animal at a festival and comes to ask how he shall do it, the school of Shammai say he must be told that he may slaughter first, dig to get loose earth, and then cover; but the school of Hillel say he must be forbidden to slaughter unless he has loose earth prepared from the preceding day. R. Joseph, however, said, that according to the school of Shammai he must be told to dig first, slaughter, and then cover. Said Abayi to R. Joseph: Shall we assume that the Master and Rabha differ about what R. Zera said in the name of Rabh, as follows: Whoever slaughters a wild animal or fowl, must have loose earth beneath, to soak the blood, and some on the top, to cover with, as it is written [Lev. xvii. 13]: "Then shall he pour out the blood thereof, and cover it up with (or in) earth"? It is not said "to place earth on it," but to it "cover it in earth." From this we infer that there must be earth underneath and earth on the top. Now, the Master agrees with R. Zera (and therefore he must be told to dig first), but Rabha does not agree with R. Zera (therefore in his opinion he must be told to slaughter first and dig after). Rejoined R. Joseph: We both agree with the dictum of R. Zera, and we differ on another point, namely, Rabha holds if there is already earth underneath, he may slaughter, but he must not dig first, for it may happen that he should afterwards reconsider the matter and not slaughter at all (then he will have dug for nothing), but I hold it is better to permit him to dig first, else it may be that he would not slaughter at all, and not enjoy the festival as becomes it.

"Both colleges agree," etc. R. Zriqa said in the name of R. Jehudah: The case is when one had a spade sticking in the ground from the preceding day. But he pounds the earth? (reduces the earth to powder). Said R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh: It is meant that the spade was already in powdered earth.

"As the ashes from the hearth," etc. Where are the ashes mentioned? Said Rabha: The Mishna means to say, that the ashes from the hearth may be considered as always prepared. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: The case is when the hearth had been heated on the preceding day, but when the fire was made on the festival, it is not so. When the ashes, however, are hot enough for roasting an egg, they are considered as prepared. We have learned the same in a Boraitha, with the addition, that if one has brought loose earth for his garden or for a ruin, he may cover the blood with it.

R. Jehudah said again: One may bring a basketful of earth, and do with it all that he needs. Lectured Mar Zutra in the name of Mar Zutra the great: The case is when he has separated a corner for it.

An objection was raised: We have learned elsewhere: A kui must not be slaughtered on a festival, and when it is, its blood must not be covered. Now, if it be so, let him cover it as R. Jehudah said above? What question is it--he could also cover it with the ashes of the hearth, or with a spade in powdered earth? We must say, then, that they were not available; and it is the same with the basketful of earth mentioned above, that he has not any. If such is the case, why a kui, of which it is doubtful whether his blood must be covered or not? Even an animal of which it is certain that his blood must be covered, the same is the case? The Mishna means to say, that not only an animal of which it is certain that his blood must be covered must not be slaughtered, unless he has prepared a covering; but even an animal which is doubtful, lest one say that because of the enjoyment of the festival it shall be slaughtered without covering, it comes to teach us that he must not. But did not the latter part of the Mishna state, that if it was slaughtered the blood must not be covered, from which we must infer that the first part of the Mishna means, even when he has a prepared covering for it?

Therefore said Rabha: The ashes of the hearth are only considered to be prepared when the animal is of a species whose blood must be certainly covered; but when the animal is of a kind about the covering of whose blood there is a doubt, it is not so (i.e., the ashes must not be handled for this purpose, as they are Muktzah). And this is in accordance with his theory elsewhere, that if one has brought earth to cover with it dung, he may cover with it the blood of a fowl, but not vice versa. The sages of Neharbelai, however, said that even if he has brought the earth for the purpose of covering with it the blood of a fowl, he may cover with it dung also. In the West R. Joseph bar Hama, and according to others Rabha the son of R. Joseph bar Hama, and R. Zera differed on this point. According to one a kui (about which it is doubted whether it is a wild or domestic animal) is regarded as dung, and according to the other it is not so (but who entertained either of these two opinions it was not known). Now, from the above teaching of Rabha, who said that earth prepared for a fowl must not be used for dung, we infer that Rabha is the one in whose opinion a kui is regarded as dung.

Rami the son of R. Jebha, however, said that the reason that we do not cover a kui on a festival is as a precautionary measure, lest one think the use of its tallow permissible. If so, let it not be covered even on a week-day? Nay, on a week-day one (who sees the blood covered) may think it is done for the purpose of cleaning the yard. But what shall be the reply to him who comes to ask (whether he should cover the blood)? Therefore we must say, that the reason is this: On a week-day, when it is doubtful, the sages decree that nevertheless he should trouble himself to cover it, but on a festival day the sages do not wish to put him to perhaps unnecessary work.

R. Zera taught: Not the blood of a kui only is it prohibited to cover on a festival day, but even when a slaughtered domestic animal's and fowl's blood were mixed together, it must not be covered either. Said R. Jose bar Jasiniah: The case is when one cannot cover the whole blood with one (shovelful) stroke of the spade, but if he can, he must cover it. Is this not self-evident? One might say that we should prohibit this as a precautionary measure to prevent him from making two strokes. Therefore he comes to teach us that such precautionary measures are not necessary. Rabha said: If one has slaughtered a fowl on the eve of a festival, the blood must not be covered on the festival; but if he kneaded dough on the eve of a festival, he must separate the "first dough" on the festival. The father of Samuel, however, said that even this is prohibited.

MISHNA: Beth Shammai say: It is prohibited to remove a ladder from one dove-cote to another; it may, however, be inclined from one opening to another (of the same dove-cote). But Beth Hillel allow both.

GEMARA: R. Hanan bar Ammi said: Both schools differ only when it is done in public ground: According to Beth Shammai one who will see him carrying a ladder may think he is going to repair his roof; but Beth Hillel do not care for that, for they say the dove-cote will show the man's purpose of carrying the ladder. But if this is done in private ground (where there is no person to see his act), all agree that this is permissible. But is it so? Did not R. Jehudah say in the name of Rabh, that all which is prohibited on account of its liability to be seen (and misjudged) remains so even in the greatest privacy? In this the Tanaim differ (Sabbath, pp. 336, 337).

Our Mishna does not accord with the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said both schools agree that the ladder may be carried from one dove-cote to another; the point on which they differ is whether the ladder may be carried back. The school of Shammai prohibit it, and the school of Hillel allow even this. Said R. Jehudah: The Mishna refers only to a ladder used for a dove-cote, but a ladder to an attic all agree is prohibited. R. Dosa said he may incline it from one window to another. Anonymous teachers say in the name of R. Dosa, that he may also trail the ladder (making it change its position by turning it about).

The children of R. Hyya were going out into the villages. When they came back their father asked them, was no question asked of you, which you have decided? and they answered that they were asked whether a ladder of an attic may be inclined on a festival, and they allowed it. And he said to them: Go, prohibit what you have permitted. (Said the Gemara): "The children of R. Hyya thought that R. Dosa had allowed what R. Jehudah prohibited, and it was not so; he only allowed what the first Tana did not prohibit; i.e., a ladder to a dove-cote, allowed by the first Tana even to be carried, R. Dosa permits only to incline.

"It may, however, be inclined from one opening," etc. We learn also in another Mishna farther on: The shutters (of shops) must not be removed on a festival, so is the decree of Beth Shammai; but according to Beth Hillel they may be even returned to their places. From this we see that concerning the enjoyment of the festival, the school of Shammai are rigorous, and the school of Hillel are lenient. Is not this in contradiction to the first Mishna of this chapter, where we see the opposite? It would be (intelligible) if we explain the first Mishna's meaning that it speaks of a spade stuck in the ground before (then Beth Shammai would not be more rigorous). But what can be said of the self-contradiction of Beth Hillel? Said R. Johanan: Change the names of the authorities (assume the prohibitions to be made by Beth Shammai and the permissions by Beth Hillel). Says the Gemara: Perhaps it is not so, because we can explain the lenience of Beth Hillel in the case of the shutters by the fact that the law of building cannot be applied to vessels (according to their theory); but in the first Mishna, where such a reason cannot be found, they did not permit.

MISHNA: Beth Shammai say: It is unlawful to remove the birds from their places, unless they have been handled before the festival; but Beth Hillel say: It is unnecessary to do more than stand on the eve of the festival before the dove-cote and say: "This and this bird will I take for the festival."

GEMARA: Said R. Hanan bar Ammi: They differ only about the first brood of pigeons. Beth Shammai hold that if one will not handle it before the festival, he may change his mind (and spare it when he comes to take it on the festival, and will take others instead of them, but if he has handled it on the previous day, we are sure that he will not change his mind). Beth Hillel, however, do not entertain this fear. But as for the second brood, all agree that it is enough if he says before the festival: "I will take this and this."

According to Beth Hillel, why is it needed one should mention the individual bird? Would it not suffice to refer to the whole dove-cote (and say, "from this dove-cote I will take more")? Should we assume that the school of Hillel do not hold the theory of premeditated choice (see Vol. III., p. 80)? But this would not be right, as from the Mishna (Oholath, VII., 3), we know that the school of Hillel hold this theory. Said Rabha: It is needed for the reason that if he will not point out the individual, he may handle the next day all birds of the dove-cote except the one he chooses (if any) unnecessarily. But did not Beth Hillel say it is enough if he says: "I will take this and this bird," and yet he may reject it when he comes to take it for slaughtering? Nay, this is on the eve of a festival, if he has chosen some of them, be they lean or fat, he will not exchange them for others; but if he did not so on the eve, and he comes to choose them on the festival itself, it may be that he will be compelled to handle many until he finds one that is fit, or it may happen he finds none fit, and he will handle them for no purpose, and he will be deprived of the enjoyment of the festival.

MISHNA: If a person who had prepared for a festival black pigeons finds white ones, or having prepared white pigeons, should find black ones; or two birds, and he find three, they must not be used. If three birds had been prepared and two only are found, they may be used; but if they had been prepared within the nest, and are found before the nest, they must not be used unless there were no other birds but these in the dove-cote.

GEMARA: Is not this self-evident? Said Rabba: The Mishna refers to a case when one had prepared both white and black, and on the morrow, when he comes to take them, he finds they have changed places. One might say that the pigeons are all the same, but they have changed places, hence the Mishna comes to teach us that it is not customary for the birds to change places, and therefore we must say that all the old ones are gone, and those which are found are other pigeons. Shall we suppose that this Mishna is in support of the decree of R. Hanina, who said that when one has to decide according to the majority of cases similar to one at hand, or according to the intrinsic probability, one should decide according to the former? (As our Mishna decided that they are other pigeons, and that is because in the majority of cases pigeons do not change places, we see that the Mishna decides according to majority and not probability.) Nay, the case of the Mishna can be explained as Abayi says farther on, that it means not in the nest itself, but on the board before the nest, where strange pigeons also come and roost (and so decides not according to majority, but probability).

"Or two birds, and he finds three," etc. Why is it so? For all reasons: Either all are strange pigeons, or at least one.

"If three birds," etc. Why so? Because two are the same, though one is gone. Shall we assume our Mishna is only according to Rabbi, and not the sages of the following Boraitha? If one had left at a certain place one hundred zuz of second tithe, and he found afterwards two hundred zuz, the ordinary and the second tithe money are mixed together. Such is the decree of Rabbi. But the sages said that the whole is considered as ordinary money (considering the first hundred as having been stolen, and this to be other money). But if he left two hundred zuz, and found only one hundred, it is considered that one hundred has been stolen, and the other hundred remains. So is the decree of Rabbi. But the sages said that the remainder becomes ordinary. Hence we see that the case of the doves in our Mishna is according to Rabbi? Nay, the Mishna can be explained even in accordance with the sages, for it was taught in addition to this Boraitha, that R. Johanan and R. Elazar both said that in the case of pigeons the law is different because pigeons have the habit of leaving their nest for short whiles.

"But if they had been prepared in the nest," etc. Shall we say this part of the Mishna is in support of the above decree of R. Hanina? Here it can also be explained as the former according to Abayi (that the board before the nest is meant where strange pigeons come to roost). Rabha, however, said: The Mishna refers to a case where there were two nests, one on the top of the other; and not only is one prohibited to use pigeons found before the lower nest, when he had prepared same in the lower, and found both nests empty, because it is considered that from only the lower nest they are gone, and those from the upper nest have come down; but if he had prepared them in the upper one, and found them in front of it, while both nests are empty, the case is the same; though usually pigeons do not go up, it is considered that the upper pigeons are gone, and those of the lower nest came up in front of the upper nest.

"Unless there were no other birds," etc. How was the case? Shall we say flying pigeons are meant? Then it maybe assumed that those that had been in the nest had flown away, and these are strangers. And if pigeons too young for flying are meant, then if there is a nest within fifty ells, we may say that those that were here bounded away, and these are strangers; but if no strange nest is near, is it not self-evident that they are the same and may be used, as Mar Uqba bar Hamma said: A pigeon that cannot fly yet is not able to bound away more than fifty ells? Nay, it can be explained thus: There is a nest within fifty ells, but it is situated in a corner so that the pigeons could not see it. They are in their own nest, and the Mishna comes to teach us, that the fear of their bounding away is only when there is another nest within fifty ells, which is visible to them when they are in their own nest; but if not visible, they do not bound away at all.

MISHNA: Beth Shammai say: The (large wooden) pestle may not be moved for the purpose of using it as a block to cut meat upon; but Beth Hillel allow it. Beth Shammai teach: It is unlawful to lay down a skin to be trodden on (as a preparation for its being tanned) or to raise it from the ground unless the (minimum) quantity of meat of the size of an olive be thereon; Beth Hillel, however, allow it.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha (an addition to this Mishna) that all agree that if one has already cut meat on this pestle, it may not be handled more (because the occasion on which it was necessary for the festival is over).

Said Abayi: Even if the pestle mentioned in the Mishna was a new one, made only for breaking bones, the case is the same; (and Abayi found this necessary to explain) lest one say, that because it is a new one, it shall be feared that he will change his mind and will not use it for this purpose, and so it will be handled unnecessarily, and therefore the Mishna comes to teach us that this fear is not entertained. From this we see that Beth Shammai have not such fear. But did we not learn in a Boraitha: Beth Shammai said the slaughterer and the knife must not be brought to the animal, nor, vice versa, it to them (for fear of his changing his mind, and not slaughtering at all, and being troubled for nothing)? And the same is the case with spices and the pestle, which must not be carried to the mortar, nor vice versa. But Beth Hillel allow both (hence we see that the school of Shammai fear his changing his mind). What comparison is it? He can reject on second consideration an animal because he wants a fatter one, or spices because he resolves to have a dish without spices, but in this case the animal is already slaughtered and the meat is for cooking; hence he must cut it and prepare it for eating.

"Beth Shammai teach it is unlawful to lay down a skin," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: Both schools agree that meat for roasting may be salted on the skin. Said Abayi: Only for roasting is it permitted to salt meat on it, but not for boiling (because for roasting much salt is not necessary, but for boiling more is needed). Is not this self-evident? It is plainly stated, "for roasting." Abayi comes to teach us that even for roasting, if more salt is needed than ordinarily, it is not permitted.

The rabbis taught: Tallow must not be salted and must not be turned over. In the name of R. Joshuah, however, it was said that one may spread it out upon nails for being aired. Said R. Mathna: The Halakha does not prevail according to R. Joshuah; but wherein differs this case from the case of the skin in our Mishna? (The cases are not identical.) When one sees him spreading out the skin, he may think because it is fit for sitting on, it is spread out for such purposes; but when one will be allowed to salt the tallow, he may say: For what purpose have the sages allowed it? Only that it shall not become spoiled. Then what is the difference between spreading and salting, and he will also salt it?

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: One may salt several pieces of meat at one time, though only one of them is needed. R. Adda bar A'hbah had recourse to ingenuity, and used to salt meat for a festival meal (salting one piece with the pretext that he will use it, and then rejecting it, and choosing another, and so on).

MISHNA: The shutters of stalls must not be removed on a festival according to Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel allow even to replace them.

GEMARA: What kind of shutters is meant? Said Ula: The shutters of movable stalls. He said again: There are three things of which the finishing was allowed (though not essential for the festival), for the reason of the beginning (which was necessary; i.e., if it would not have been allowed to finish them, they would not have been begun). They are: The skin for the tanner, the shutters of the shops, and the replacing of a plaster (on the priest's hand) in the Temple. And Rhaba said in the name of Rabh Jehudah the Babylonian Amora: The same is the case when one opens a barrel or begins to knead dough on the festival (he may stop up the barrel, or finish the kneading, because he would not begin if he were not permitted to finish, and his enjoyment of the festival would not be complete), and this is according to Rabbi Jehudah the Tana, who said (in Hagigah, p. 52), he shall finish it.

Our Mishna is not in accordance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: The schools both of Shammai and Hillel agree that the shutters may be removed on the festival; they differ only about the replacing of them. Beth Shammai do not permit this, and Beth Hillel allow even this. But this is in case there are hinges, but if there is none all agree it is permitted. But have we not learned in another Boraitha the contrary of this? Said Abayi: It can be explained so: If the hinges are at the sides of the shutters, all agree it is prohibited; if there are no hinges at all, all agree it is permissible. They differ only on this point when the hinges are in the middle: Beth Shammai prohibit it as a precautionary measure, lest one think it permissible also even when they are at the sides, and Beth Hillel think such a precautionary measure is not to be taken.

MISHNA: A child, a Lulab (a branch of a date-tree), holy scrolls, must not be carried in public ground according to Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel allow it.

GEMARA: In the presence of R. Itz'hak bar Abdimi one Tana taught as follows: If one slaughters a voluntary offering on a festival, he is liable to the penalty of stripes. Said R. Itz'hak to him: According to whom is your teaching? That is only according to Beth Shammai, who do not hold the theory that because it is permitted to carry things for the purposes of the festival, it is permissible to carry other things, even when they are not necessary for the purposes of the festival; but according to Beth Hillel, who hold this theory, we can say, because slaughtering for the festival is permitted, slaughtering for other purposes is also permitted, consequently he is not liable to stripes. R. Johanan's opinion is also that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differ about the acceptation of the above theory.

Because a disciple has taught in the presence of R. Johanan thus: If one cooks the sinew which shrank [Gen. xxxii. 33] in milk on a festival, and eats it, he is liable to five times stripes: once for cooking the sinew, once for eating it, once for cooking meat in milk, once for eating meat with milk, and once for kindling a fire on the festival. And R. Johanan said to him: Go with thy teaching out of the college, because for kindling a fire and cooking on the festival he is not liable for stripes, according to the teaching of the Mishna; and even if you would find a Mishna which is in accordance with your teaching, it could be only according to the school of Shammai, who deny the theory that, because it is permitted to kindle a fire and to cook for the purposes of the festival, it is permissible also for other purposes; then, according to the school of Hillel, who agree with this theory, no Mishna could teach so. Now then, when kindling and cooking are permitted on the festival, you must remove the stripes for cooking and kindling out of the whole case.

MISHNA: It is unlawful, according to Beth Shammai, to carry to the priest on a festival the first dough (Halah) or other gifts, whether they had been set apart for that purpose on that day or on the preceding day. Beth Hillel, however, allow this. Said Beth Shammai: Let us say to them: Is there not an analogy of expression in both? First dough and other priestly dues are called gifts to the priest (Matanoth); and heave-offering (Terumah) is also called gifts to the priest. Now, as the last is prohibited, the same must be the case with the first? Rejoined Beth Hillel: Nay, how can the gifts be compared to heave-offering? The last one is not allowed to be set apart on the festival, whereas other gifts may.

GEMARA: At the first glance, the teaching of the Mishna, "whether it had been set apart on the same day," would seem to mean that it was slaughtered and set apart on the same day, and the expression, "the preceding day," would seem to mean that it was slaughtered also on that day. If it is so, however, according to whose opinion would the Mishna be? Not according to R. Jose, not according to R. Jehudah, but according to the anonymous teachers. As we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ about the gifts that were set apart on the eve of a festival, whether they might be brought together with the gifts set apart and slaughtered on the festival. What they differ in is only whether those set apart on the eve of the festival might be brought to the priest separately. Beth Shammai do not allow this, and Beth Hillel permit it. R. Jose, however, said that the above schools do not differ about gifts at all, but only about the heave-offering; but an anonymous teacher said that they never differ about the heave-offering, which is prohibited according to all, but only about other gifts. Hence our Mishna is in accordance with the anonymous teachers. Said Rabha: Did the Mishna teach that they were set apart and slaughtered on the same day? They were set apart on that day, but may have been slaughtered on the previous day. Then the Mishna will be according to R. Jehudah only, but not according to the anonymous teachers? Nay, we may say it is in accordance with the anonymous teachers also, but the point on which they differ would be the gift that had been slaughtered on a preceding day. If it is so, the anonymous teachers would say the same as R. Jehudah? Nay, there is a difference about the adding of the gifts set apart on the preceding day to those set apart on the festival itself (according to R. Jehudah it may be done, and according to the anonymous teachers it may not). Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails according to R. Jose.

R. Tubbi the son of R. Nehemiah possessed one pitcher of wine of heave-offering on a festival, and he came to R. Joseph and asked him: Can I give it away to the priest to-day? And the answer was, that R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel declared the Halakha prevails according to R. Jose (who permits).

The host of an inn where Rabha bar R. Hanan was staying, possessed bundles of mustard stalks, and he asked his guest: May I thrash it and eat it on a festival? And he did not know the law. And he came before Rabha, who told him: We have learned in a Tosephta, one may pluck ears or crush pea-pods to get out the grains or peas on a festival. Abayi objects: We have learned in a Boraitha: Whoso has plucked ears on the eve of Sabbath, he may blow away chaff on the Sabbath from one hand into another, and eat, but not sieve. If he has done it on the eve of a festival, he may sieve it on the next day in a small but not a large sieve (that it may not be thought he does it for the next day). Hence it seems from this that to do it on the festival itself is not allowed. Rabha answered: The same would be the case on the festival itself. But as in the first part it is said: On the eve of Sabbath, so in the last part he speaks of the eve of the festival. (Said Abayi again:) If it is so, then we find a case in which it is allowed to set apart heave-offering on a festival (as it is usually taken from a quantity of grains, not ears); and here, when he thrashes the ears for the purpose of eating the grain, you allow him to separate the heave-offering of it, for otherwise he is not allowed to eat, and in our Mishna it is plainly stated that the heave-offering is not allowed to be set apart on the festival. Rabha answered: It presents no difficulty. Elsewhere it is said, according to Rabbi's opinion heave-offering may be separated on the festival, and only R. Jose bar Jehudah opposed him, and our Mishna is in accordance with the latter.

How shall one pluck (a change from the ordinary week-day manner there must be)? Abayi in the name of R. Jose said: He shall pluck it with the thumb and the index-finger. But R. Ivya upon the same authority said: The thumb and the two fingers next to it. Rabha, however, said: As soon as he does it in a peculiar manner, the number of fingers he employs is a matter of no great consequence.

How shall one blow? R. Adda bar A'hba said in the name of Rabh: He shall blow only off his fingers (but not the palms). But in Palestine they ridiculed this, saying that, provided he does it in a peculiar manner, he may employ his palms also. Therefore R. Elazar said: He may blow it off one hand with his whole might (but must not use the other).

MISHNA: Spices may be pounded on a festival with a wooden pestle only, and salt with an earthenware jug, or with a large wooden spoon, according to Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel say: Spices may be, as usual, pounded with a stone pestle, and salt with a wooden spoon.

GEMARA: From this we see that all agree that salt must be pounded in a different manner. Why? R. Huna and R. Hisda: One said, because all the dishes must have salt, but not all the dishes must have spices; and the other said, all the spices lose their fragrance, but not salt. What is the difference between the two? If one knows on the eve of a festival what dish he will prepare on the morrow? According to the former it needs a peculiarity (because he could have prepared it on the eve); and according to the latter it needs not, because had he prepared it on the eve the spices would lose their fragrance.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel, however, said: All that is pounded may be pounded on a festival as on week-days, even salt. Did we not say above, that salt must be pounded differently? He holds with the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Meir said: Both schools of Shammai and Hillel never differ about the point that all things may be pounded on a festival as on week-days, and salt when it is among them: what they differ about is, whether it may be done so when it is separate. According to Beth Shammai it must be pounded with an earthenware jug or a large wooden spoon; and only in a quantity needed for roasting, but not for stewing into a pot; but Beth Hillel allow any quantity.

R. A'ha Bardla said to his son: If it shall happen that you will have to pound something on a festival, you should incline your mortar, and then pound (i.e., he shall make some change in the manner of pounding). R. Shesheth heard on a festival the sound of pounding in a mortar, and he said: It is surely not in my house. Why was he sure? Perhaps the mortar was inclined? Because he could infer from the sound that this was not so. Perhaps they were pounding spices? Then the sound would have been different.

The rabbis taught: Ptisana must not be made on a festival, for nothing may be pounded. But a small quantity may be pounded in a small mortar.

It once happened that R. Papa was the guest of Mar Samuel, and Ptisana was offered him, but he did not partake of it. Why? Perhaps it had been done in a small mortar? He did not choose to trust his host's servants, because they were disobedient.

MISHNA: When one picks pulse on a festival, he may, according to Beth Shammai, only pick out the eatable part and eat it; but according to Beth Hillel he may pick it as usual in his lap, in a basket with holes, or in a large dish, but not on a large table, or through a small or large sieve. Rabban Gamaliel says: It is also lawful to pour water thereon, and remove the part not fit to eat, by hand.

GEMARA: We learn in a Boraitha: Said R. Gamaliel: The Mishna refers to a case when there was more of the eatable part than of the part unfit for eating; but if the opposite was the case, then all agree that he may take out only the eatable part and leave the rest. Is there any one who is allowed to do as usually even when the unfit part was larger than the rest? R. Gamaliel meant to say, that even when the quantity of the unfit part was small, but to pick it out would be more trouble than to pick out the eatable part, all agree that he shall do what gives less trouble,

"Rabban Gamaliel said," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Elazar bar Zadok said: Such was the custom in the house of Rabban Gamaliel: They usually brought a pail full of lentils and poured water on it, and the eatable part settled down, while the unfit part remained floating; but another Boraitha states the contrary (that the unfit part settles down, etc.)? It presents no difficulty: the straw floats above, but if there is any dust or other such matter, it sinks.

MISHNA: It is unlawful for one to send to another as a present on the festival anything but eatables, according to Beth Shammai. Beth Hillel, however, permit to send even cattle, game, and poultry, either slaughtered or alive; also presents of wine, oil, fine flour, and pulse, but not grain. R. Simeon allows also to send grain.

GEMARA: R. Je'hiel taught: This is permissible only when he sends it by a few persons, but not by a whole line of men. A Boraitha taught that a line is not constituted by less than three men.

"R. Simeon," etc. A Boraitha taught: R. Simeon permits to send grain; e.g., wheat, to make of it a dish which the inhabitants of Lydia used to make (by grinding the grains of wheat); barley, to give it to cattle; and lentils, to make of them a dish.

MISHNA: It is also permitted to send clothes, sewed or not, even of "Kelayim," in case they can be used on the festival, but not sandals with iron nails or unfinished shoes. R. Jehudah says: White shoes may not be sent either, because an artificer is required to make them fit for use. This is the general rule: Whatever can be used on the festival, may be sent as a present thereon.

GEMARA: It is right that sewed clothes should be permitted on a festival, because they can be used, and clothes not sewed may also be used for covering; but how can Kelayim be used? The Mishna meant to say rough clothes which can be used for sitting upon, and this is according to R. Huna the son of R. Joshuah, who said that felt of the city of Narash (which was rough) might be worn even if in it is Kelayim (linen and wool mixed together),

"But not sandals," etc. What is the reason? Because once an accident occurred. Said Abayi: Sandals with iron nails must not be worn, because an accident happened on account of them, but they may be handled; and this we infer from our Mishna, which says that they shall not be sent, and if it were disallowed to handle them, it would be self-evident that they could not be sent.

"Or unfinished shoes." Is it not self-evident? The Mishna means to say that even if there were nails in them already (so that they could be put on), yet being unfinished, they might not be sent.

"R. Jehudah says," etc. We have learned, in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah permits to send black shoes, but not white, because lime is needed to make them white; and R. Jose prohibits black shoes, because they must be polished. They do not disagree, however. Both speak of the customs in their respective places. In the place of one Master the skin of the shoes had the inner side turned out, and therefore it had to be made white; while in the other the opposite was the case, and polishing was needed.

"This is the general rule," etc. R. Shesheth permitted to his disciples to send phylacteries on a festival. Said Abayi to him: Did not we learn in our Mishna, only a thing which can be used on the festival may be sent (and phylacteries are not used then)? And he answered: The Mishna meant to say things fit to be used on a week-day may be sent on a festival. Said Abayi: When the phylacteries are spoken of we would like to say something: If one was on the road on the eve of Sabbath or of a festival, and the Tefilin were on his head and the sun set, he may lay his hand on the Tefilin and thus come to his home. The same is the case when he was sitting in the house of learning and the Tefilin were on his head, he may lay his hand on them until he comes home.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE COMBINING OF COOKERY ON A FESTIVAL PRECEDING A SABBATH.

MISHNA: When the festival falls on Friday, it is unlawful to prepare thereon, on purpose, any food for the Sabbath, but for the festival alone, and whatever remains may be used for the Sabbath; and one may prepare on the eve of the festival one dish for the Sabbath especially, and then he may continue cooking on the festival for the Sabbath. Beth Shammai, however, say: Two dishes are necessary; Beth Hillel say: One is sufficient. Both, however, agree that fish and egg upon it may be considered as two dishes. If the dish thus prepared has been eaten or lost, nothing more may be cooked in addition to it; but if any small portion whatever is left, it suffices.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said Samuel: It is written [Ex. xx. 8]: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"; from which we infer that we should remember it when we are liable to forget it (i.e., when it is holiday already, one can forget it). Our Tana, however, infers this from the following passage [ibid. xvi. 23]: "What ye shall bake, bake to-day and what ye shall seethe, seethe to-day." From this R. Elazar inferred that it shall not be baked unless same is baked already, and it shall not be cooked unless same is cooked already. And this is used by the sages as a biblical support to the law of the combining of cookery.

The rabbis taught: It once happened that R. Eliezer was sitting and lectured a whole day (of the festival) about the laws relating to festivals. The first part of his audience arose and went out, and R. Eliezer said: These people must have great barrels of wine, and they are in a hurry to drink them. The second portion of the audience went away, and he said: These people must have smaller barrels. Of the third part he remarked: They must have cans. Of the fourth he said: They must have lugs. When the fifth part left him, he said: They must have only goblets. When the sixth part began to depart, he said: They are worthy to be scolded (because the college began to be empty). At the same time he looked upon his disciples and saw the color of their faces was changed, and he said to them: My children, I did not mean you. I spoke only about those people who leave eternal life for temporary affairs. When his disciples were going away, he said to them [Nehem. viii. 10]: "Go your way, eat fat things, drink sweet drinks, and send portions unto him for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy unto our Lord: and do not grieve yourselves; but let the joy of the Lord be your stronghold."

The Master says: "Because they leave eternal life for temporary affairs." Is not the enjoying of the festival a religious duty? R. Eliezer said this in accordance with his theory that the enjoying of a festival is not obligatory, as we learned in the following Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: A man has nothing to do on a festival but either to eat and drink the whole day, or to sit and study; but R. Joshuah said: He must divide the day--one-half of it for eating and drinking, and one-half of it for religious purposes. Said R. Johanan: The above both sages deduce from the following verse [Deut. xvi. 8]: "On the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly unto the Lord thy God"; another verse [Num. xxix. 35]: "An assembly shall be to you." How can the contradiction between these two verses be explained? R. Eliezer explains it thus. The whole day shall be either for you or for the Lord; but R. Joshuah explains it thus: Divide the day--one-half for the Lord and one-half for you. Said R. Elazar: All agree that on Pentecost the day must be partly devoted to one's self also. Why so? Because on this day the law was given to Israel, and we must enjoy it. Said Rabha: All agree also that on a Sabbath the day must be devoted to one's self also. Why? Because it is written [Is. lviii. 13]: "Thou shalt call the Sabbath a delight." And R. Joseph said: All agree that on the festival of Purim the day must also be devoted to one's self, as it is written [Esther, ix. 22]: "To make them days of entertainment and joy." Mar the son of Rabina was fasting the whole year except on Pentecost, Purim, and the eve of the Day of Atonement: Pentecost, because the law was given; Purim, because they are days of joy and entertainment; and the eve of the Day of Atonement, for a reason that is explained in Tract Yomah, p. 129.

R. Joseph on the days of Pentecost used to say to his domestics: Prepare for me a calf which is the third-born (of the third birth), saying: If not this day be the reason, how many Josephs are there abroad! (and but for the law, he would not be distinguished among them).

R. Shesheth used to repeat his studies every thirty days, and, supporting himself against the wall of the college, said: Rejoice, my soul! Rejoice, my soul! For thy sake I have read, for thy sake I have studied.

What is meant, in the above verse of Nehemiah, by "send portions to those for whom nothing is prepared"? Said R. Hisda: It refers to those men who have not made an Erub Tabshilin (combining of cookery). What is meant by "let the joy of the Lord be your stronghold"? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Elazar bar Simeon: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, borrow money for my sake, and rejoice on the holy day, and trust to me, I shall pay it.

R. Tachlipha brother of Rabanai Huzaah taught: All the necessaries of a man are appointed for him in the Heavenly Court in the ten days between New Year and the Day of Atonement, except the expenses for Sabbath, the festivals, and the studies of his children: the amount for these purposes appointed for him in Heaven is the same as that which he spends (and varies with it).

We have learned in a Boraitha: It was said that Shammai the Elder used to eat all days for the honor of Sabbath. When he found a good animal, he used to say: This shall be for Sabbath. But when he found a better one, he ate the former, and left the better one for Sabbath; but Hillel the Elder had another habit: Because all his deeds were for the sake of Heaven, as it is written [Ps. lxviii. 20]: "Blessed be the Lord! day by day he loadeth us with benefits" (trusting in God to provide for Sabbath at the proper time).

"One may prepare on the eve of the festival one dish," etc. Said Abayi: Only a dish is good for the purpose, but bread alone is not. Why so? Shall we assume it is required to have an article of food which is not often eaten, and bread is always eaten, then a dish of disa (mush), which is rarely eaten, is nevertheless disallowed by R. Nehuma bar Zachariah in the name of Abayi? The reason is this: One must have a thing which can be eaten with bread, and disa cannot be eaten with bread. As it happened that R. Zera saw people eating disa with bread, he said: The Babylonians are fools, they eat bread with bread!

R. Hiya taught: Lentils which are on the bottom of a pot may be used as an Erub Tabshilin, if the quantity is of the size of an olive. R. Itz'hak the son of R. Jehudah said that the fat of a fowl, if it is of the size of an olive, may be similarly used. And R. Abha said in the name of Rabh: The prescribed quantity for an Erub is the size of an olive, and it is sufficient for one or for one hundred persons. Said R. Huna in the name of Rabh: The combining of cookery must be done intentionally. It is certain that the person who makes the Erub must have the intention, but how is it with the person for whom the Erub is made? Is his intention also needed, or is it not? Come and hear: The father of Samuel made an Erub for all the inhabitants of Nehardai, and R. Ammi and R. Assi made an Erub for the whole population of Tiberia (hence the intention of those for whom the Erub is made is not necessary).

R. Jacob bar Idi proclaimed: Everybody who has not made an Erub Tabshilin shall rely on my Erub Tabshilin (and shall do the preparing for Sabbath). And at what distance? Said R. Nehuma bar Zachariah. in the name of Abayi: As far as the legal limit of Sabbath (2,000 ells).

There was a blind man who had classified Mishnaioth before Mar Samuel; and Mar Samuel saw he was downcast. And he asked him: Why are you downcast? And he answered: Because I have not made an Erub Tabshilin. Said Mar Samuel to him: Rely upon mine. The next year he saw him again sad, and got the s me answer, and Mar Samuel rejoined: If it is so, you are a transgressor (you have not made one intentionally). All can rely upon my Erub Tabshilin, but not you.

The rabbis taught: On a festival which happens to be on Friday, the Erub of legal limit and the Erubin of courts are not to be made. Rabbi, however, said: The Erub of legal limit is not to be made, but the Erubin of courts may, because you can prohibit one to do a thing for to-morrow which he may not do to-day; but you cannot forbid a man to do a thing for to-morrow which he may do to-day (Erubin of courts are needed only for Sabbath, but not on festivals). It was taught: Rabh said the Halakha prevails according to the first Tana, but Samuel said the Halakha prevails according to Rabbi.

The rabbis taught: On a festival following on Sabbath one shall say eight benedictions; that is to say, the Sabbath benediction separately. Beth Hillel, however, said: One shall pronounce seven benedictions, and he shall begin and close, with Sabbath, and shall include the holiness of the day. Rabbi said: He shall close with the benediction: "Blessed be He who sanctifies the Sabbath, Israel, and the festivals." A disciple taught in the presence of Rabina: "Who sanctified Israel, the Sabbath, and the festivals," and Rabina rejoined: Does Israel then sanctify the Sabbath? The Sabbath is itself holy: Say then: "Who sanctified the Sabbath, Israel, and the festivals." Said R. Jose: The Halakha prevails according to Rabbi as interpreted by Rabina.

The rabbis taught: On a Sabbath following on the first day of the month, or any day of the intermitting days, one shall pronounce in the three prayers of evening, morning, and Min'ha seven benedictions; and concerning the festival he shall include the prayer about the return of the Temple-service, and if he has omitted it he must begin all again. But in the Additional Prayer he shall begin and close with the benediction of Sabbath, and t c holiness of the day shall be included.

Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Broka say that whenever there are seven benedictions, he shall begin and close with Sabbath, and the benediction of the day shall be included. Said R. Huna: The Halakha does not prevail in accordance with last pair.

R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh said: One may lay an Erub of legal limit on the first day of a festival (in exile, where two days are kept) with a condition, if the right day of the festival is to-day, then the Erub is null and void, because one can go to-morrow without any Erub at all; and if the right day of the festival is the next day, this Erub shall be for that day. Said Rabha: The same is the case with the Erub for cookery.

The rabbis taught: It shall not be baked from one festival day for another. It was truly said that a woman may fill a whole pot with meat though she do not need more than one piece (for that day). The same is the case with a baker, who may fill a whole barrel with water, though he need only one can (for the day); but it is not allowed to bake except as much as is needed for the day. R. Simeon b. Elazar, however, said, that a woman (not a baker) may fill a whole oven with bread, because it is better baked when the whole oven is full. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails according to the latter.

The schoolmen propound a question: If one has not made an Erub Tabshilin, is he only prohibited to do anything for Sabbath, but not his flour? Or is his flour also forbidden? What is the difference? To transfer his flour to others, if you say the flour is not prohibited, then another one can take his flour and prepare for him; but if you say his flour is prohibited, then he must transfer it. Come and hear: One who has not made an Erub Tabshilin must not bake nor cook nor save either for himself or for others, nor may others do it for him; but what shall he do (to eat something on Sabbath)? He shall transfer his flour to others, and then they may bake and cook for him. From this we infer that both he and his flour are prohibited.

The schoolmen propounded a question: How is it if one has transgressed and baked without an Erub? Come and hear: If one has not made an Erub Tabshilin, etc. (as mentioned above). Now, if it would be allowed to eat, why does not the Boraitha state that if one has transgressed and has baked, it is allowed to eat? Said R. Adda b. Mathna: From this nothing can be inferred. The Tana advises only how to dispose for a man, he shall be able to prepare something in accordance with the Law; but when one has acted against the Law, this Tana does not speak of it at all. Come and hear another Boraitha: If one has made an Erub Tabshilin, he may bake, cook, and save, and if he wants the Erub, it is allowed; but if he has eaten the Erub before he has baked or saved, then he is not allowed to bake, cook, or save either for himself or for others, neither are others allowed to do so for him. He may, however, cook for the festival and use what is left on the Sabbath, provided he does not do it cunningly (i.e., he shall not add so much that he shall have sufficient for the whole Sabbath), and when he does it cunningly he must not use it for the Sabbath. (Hence we see, that if he acted against the Law, it is prohibited.) Said R. Ashi: The case of cunning is different, because the rabbis were very rigorous with such. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak said: The Boraitha which said that cunning is prohibited is not at all in accordance with the decision of the rabbis, but of an individual, Hananiah, who taught it in accordance with the decision of Beth Shammai, as it is to be understood from the following: Hananiah said: Beth Shammai declare: One shall not bake unless he has made an Erub with bread; one shall not cook unless he has made it with something cooked; and one shall not save, unless he has already saved warm water for the Sabbath. Beth Hillel, however, said: One may make an Erub with something cooked, and through it he may prepare everything.

"Beth Shammai say two dishes," etc. Our Mishna is not in accordance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: Both schools agree that two dishes are needed. In what they differ is about a fish and egg which is upon it. According to Beth Shammai it is considered as two dishes, but according to the school of Hillel it is considered only as one dish. Both agree, however, that if one put in a cooked egg in the fish or χεφαλιδος in the cooked fish, it is considered as two dishes. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails as our Tana and according to Beth Hillel.

"If it has been eaten or lost," etc. Said Abayi: We have a tradition that he who has begun to knead dough and heard mean. while that the Erub was lost, may finish his work nevertheless.

MISHNA: When the festival falls after a Sabbath, Beth Shammai say: Everything requiring purification must be immersed before the Sabbath. But Beth Hillel say: Vessels must be immersed before the Sabbath, and human beings on the Sabbath. Both schools agree that water which has become polluted may be purified by pouring it into an earthenware vessel, but not on earth itself. It is lawful, however, to dip vessels whose original appropriation has been altered, and men may bathe when they have changed from one company to another (to eat the Paschal lamb).

GEMARA: We see from this Mishna that, according to all, a vessel must not be dipped on Sabbath. Why so? Said R. Bibbi: It is a precautionary measure, lest one leave the vessels unclean on the week-days for purification on Sabbath. We have learned in a Boraitha in support to R. Bibbi: A vessel which has become unclean on the eve of the festival must not be dipped on the festival; and this is a precautionary measure, as the one above mentioned. Rabha, however, said: The reason why one must not immerse on Sabbath is that it would seem as if one repaired the vessel. If it is so, why may a man bathe on Sabbath (and a man cannot eat Terumah, etc., when he has not bathed). A man is different, as it can be said that he is doing so to cool himself. That would be right, if he bathed in pure water; but if he immerses himself in turbid water? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: It happens that a man becomes heated, and then he bathes even in water in which flax has been steeped, to cool himself. This would be right in summer-time, but what can be said if he does it in winter-time? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: It may happen a man becomes dirty and soiled, and then considers not the quality of the water. All this is right on a Sabbath, but what would be the law on a Day of Atonement? Said Rabha: Do you find something allowed to be done on Sabbath that is not allowed on the Day of Atonement? (Therefore, because it is permitted on Sabbath, it is permitted also on the Day of Atonement.)

"But not on earth itself." What is meant by this? Said Samuel: He may bring it in contact with water of a legal bath, but not in an unclean vessel.

According to whom is our Mishna? As it is not according to Rabbi, nor according to the sages of the following Boraitha: One must not immerse the vessel with the water therein to purify it, nor bring it in contact with water in a stone vessel to purify the water therein: so is the decree of Rabbi. The sages, however, permitted both. (Hence according to whom is the Mishna?) We may say that it is according to the sages' opinion, and the Mishna refers not to purification on a week-day but on Sabbath.

"Whose original appropriation has been altered," etc. The rabbis taught: If one wishes to immerse his vessels for the purpose of filling them with the oil of newly crushed olives, and afterwards changes his mind and resolves to crush the olives in them, or vice versa, he may do so. If one was engaged to eat the Paschal lamb with one company, and thereafter he changed his mind to eat with another company, he might do so.

MISHNA: One may bring peace-offerings on the festival, but not lay his hands on them; and burnt-offerings may not be brought at all--according to Beth Shammai. Beth Hillel, however, allow all this.

GEMARA: Said Ula: The point on which both schools differ is the laying of the hands on the peace-offerings of the feast and whether burnt-offerings of the pilgrimage may be sacrificed at all. Beth Shammai hold: It is written [Ex. xii. 14]: "Ye shall celebrate it as a feast unto the Lord"; it, i.e., the peace-offering, but not the burnt-offering. But Beth Hillel say: "unto the Lord that signifies, all that is unto the Lord is allowed. But vows and voluntary offerings, all agree, are not. Such also is the opinion of R. Adda bar A'hba. An objection was raised: We have learned elsewhere (in addition to this Mishna): R. Simeon b. Elazar said: Both schools do not differ concerning a burnt-offering which does not belong to the festival, that it must not be offered, and also that peace-offerings which belong to the festival may be offered. In what they differ is, when the burnt-offering belongs to this festival and concerning the peace-offerings which do not belong to this festival. According to Beth Shammai they must not be offered, and according to Beth Hillel they may. (Hence we see that according to both, vow and voluntary offerings are to be offered on the festival?) Answer this objection that the saying of R. Simeon b. Elazar must read thus: He said, Both schools do not differ when the burnt and peace-offerings do not belong to this festival, that they must not be offered, and the peace-offering which belongs to this festival, that it may; they differ only about a burnt-offering which belongs to this festival, that according to Beth Shammai it must not, and according to Beth Hillel it may. Said R. Joseph: Is it necessary to make out the Boraitha as erroneous because of the saying of Ula? Are there not other Tanaim who differ on this point, and Ula's saying can be according to them? As we, have found in the following Boraitha: Peace-offerings which belong to this festival, when they are to be offered on it, Beth Shammai said: He may lay his hands upon it on the eve of the festival, and it shall be slaughtered on the festival; Beth Hillel, however, said: Both may be done on the festival; but vow and voluntary offerings must not be offered on the festival.

And the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ on the same point: One must not bring thanksgiving-offerings on all days of Passover, because they contain unleavened bread; nor on Pentecost, because it is a festival; but he may bring them on the Feast of Tabernacles (on the intermitting days). R. Simeon, however, said: It is written [Deut. xvi. 16]: "On Passover, on Pentecost, and on the Feast of Booths." From this we may infer that all that may be brought on Passover and Pentecost, may be brought also during the Feast of Tabernacles; but what must not be brought on the first two, one may not on the third. R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon, however, said: One may bring thanksgiving-offerings during the Feast of Tabernacles, and by this will be fulfilled the duty of enjoying the holiday, but not the duty of bringing a feast-offering. Is not this self-evident? Are not the feast-offerings a duty, and it is certain that a duty must be brought of a profane (ordinary) quality? He mean s to teach us, that even if one has explicitly said that be intends the thanksgiving-offering also for a feast-offering, nevertheless the duty of the feast-offering is not fulfilled. As R. Simeon b. Lakish asked of R. Johanan: If one say, "I will bring a thanksgiving-offering, and with this I will fulfil the duty of a feast-offering"; or, "I will be a Nazarite, but when I shall bring the offering after shaving, I will take it from the second tithe money," what is the law? And R. Johanan answered him: He must bring a thanksgiving-offering, but the duty of the feast-offering is not fulfilled; he is a Nazarite, but cannot bring the shaving-offering from the second tithe money.

It once happened a man said: Give four hundred Zuz to a certain man, and he shall marry my daughter. Said R. Papa: The four hundred Zuz must be given to him, and the daughter, if he likes her, he can marry, but not otherwise. The reason is, because he has said first, "give him the money"; [but if he had mentioned the daughter first he would get the money only if he married]. If he had said: He shall marry and take the money, then he must marry her first. Meremar was sitting and declaring the Halakha in his own name. Said Rabbina to him: You teach this as if it were a Boraitha; we, however, learn it as the question of Resh Lakish from R. Johanan, mentioned above, and the decision is R. Johanan's.

The rabbis taught: It happened to Hillel the Elder that he brought his burnt-offering to the Temple-court for laying hands on it on the festival. The disciples of Shammai the Elder, however, surrounded him, and asked him: What is the matter with this animal? And he answered: It is a female, and I have brought it for a peace-offering. And he shook the animal's tail, and they went away. And on that day the school of Shammai took the upper hand over Beth Hillel, and the people wanted to decide the Halakha according to them; but one old man was there among the disciples of Shammai the Elder, Baba ben Butta by name, who was certain that the Halakha prevailed according to Beth Hillel. And he sent and brought of the best sheep of Jerusalem, and placed them in the Temple-court, and said: Everybody who wants to lay his hands upon them shall come and do so. And on that day Beth Hillel took the upper hand, and the Halakha was decided according to them, and no objection was made by anybody.

Again, it happened once that a disciple of Beth Hillel brought his burnt-offering into the Temple-court for the purpose of laying his hands upon it, and a disciple of the school of Shammai met him and said: Why the handling? And he replied: Why are you not silent? So he silenced him with a rebuke, so that he went away. Said Abayi: From this we may infer that if a young scholar says to another a few words, the answer shall not be more lengthy than the remark which was addressed, as we have seen in the case of the two disciples, when he asked him: "Why the laying of the hands?" he answered him: "Why not be silent?"

We have learned in a Boraitha: The disciples of Hillel said to the disciples of Shammai: (Is not this an a fortiori?) If on Sabbath, when all things to be done for a human being are prohibited, nevertheless in honor of the Lord all is permitted; on a festival, when all things necessary for a human being may be done, so much the more everything may be done for the Lord (i.e., and why, then, shall a burnt-offering of the pilgrimage not be sacrificed?). And they answered: You can infer this from voluntary and vow offerings, that are permissible for a human being, and nevertheless even you own that they must not be sacrificed on a festival. Said Beth Hillel again: There is no comparison here because voluntary and vow offerings have no appointed times. The burnt-offerings, however, have stated times. Rejoined Beth Shammai: Nay, even these have no appointed time, as we have learned in a Mishna: One who has not brought his feast-offering on the first day of a festival may do it during the whole festival and even on its last day. Rejoined Beth Hillel again: Is this not a fixed time? As we have learned in another Mishna, if one has not brought a feast-offering during the whole festival, he is no longer responsible to do it (consequently there is a stated time for it, and if we will prohibit him from bringing it on the first day of the festival, he may not bring it any more at all). Said Beth Shammai again: Has it not been said in the verse, "an assembly shall be unto you," which may signify for your sake and not for the Lord's sake? And they answered: Does not another verse say: "An assembly shall be unto the Lord"? Whence we may infer that all which is in honor of the Lord shall be done. And from the expression "unto you" we may infer "for your sake but not for the sake of strangers."

R. Iviah the Elder asked R. Huna: An animal which is half a Gentile's and half an Israelite's, how is the law of slaughtering it on a festival? And he answered: One may do it. And he asked him again: What is the difference between this and voluntary vow-offerings? And he replied: A raven flew away. When R. Iviah was gone, said Rabba, R. Huna's son, to his father: Was this not R. Iviah the Elder, whom you praised to me as a great man? And he answered: What could I have done with him? I am to-day weak, I have lectured, and need what is written in Song of Songs, ii. 5, to "strengthen me with flagons of wine, refresh me with apples"; and he asked me a thing of which the reason must be explained (at length). [And in reality, what is the reason? This: An animal which is half a Gentile's and half an Israelite's may be slaughtered on a festival, because if one wants to eat meat even the size of an olive, he cannot take it.from the animal when it is still alive, but it must be slaughtered; and as this animal belonged half to an Israelite, he can certainly slaughter it. But vow and voluntary offerings, they are considered all for Heaven, and although the priests eat some of their meat, this is only because of their reward from Heaven, and not from the one who brings the offerings.]

Dough, however, which is half an Israelite's and half a Gentile's, is not to be baked on the festival, because it can be divided when it is yet dough. R. Hana bar Hanilai objects: We have learned of dough made for dogs, if the shepherd can eat of it, one is liable to take of it first dough, and may make an Erub with it, and may use it for the combining of the entrance; and the benediction of eating may be said over it, and if three or more men had eaten of it, they may pronounce the benediction of the meal, and it may be baked on the festival, and the man who eats it (when it is not leavened) on the first evening of Passover has done his duty of eating Matzah. Now, if it is possible to divide it when it is dough, why should it be baked on a festival (let him set apart the portion for the dogs, and bake for himself)? The dough for the dogs is different; because one can give a carcass to the dogs, instead of the dough. But does R. Hisda hold the supposition of because? Was it not taught (Vol. V., p. 74) that R. Hisda is against this supposition? Say, the case is when the shepherd has a carcass and intends to do so.

R. Huna was asked: May the inhabitants of Baga, who had the duty to give bread to the military, bake it on the festival? And he answered: Let us see. If the soldiers are not particular when one takes a piece of the bread and gives it to a child, then of every loaf we can say: "This is fit for a child," and it may be baked. But if they are particular, it may not be so done. But have we not learned in a Boraitha as follows: It once happened to Simeon of Teman that he did not visit the house of learning on a festival day. On the morrow Jehudah b. Baba asked him: Why wast thou not yesterday in the house of learning? And he answered: Military were coming yesterday into the city, and wanted to rob the whole city; and we slaughtered for them calves, and made them eat, and they went away in peace. Rejoined R. Jehudah b. Baba: I wonder whether your loss vas not greater than your benefit, for the Torah teaches "unto you," but not unto Gentiles. (They should not have done work for the soldiers.) Now, why? Were not the calves fit for Israelites also? Said R. Joseph: The calves were Terepha.

But was it not fit for dogs when the owners are obliged to feed them? The Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ about this law: It is written [Ex. xii. 16]: "Save what is eaten by every soul, that only may be prepared for you." From the expression "every soul," we may infer, even a soul of an animal, as we find [in Leviticus xxiv.], "he that taketh the soul of an animal shall pay for it." Therefore the verse says plainly, "for you," and not for dogs. So said R. Jose the Galilean. R. Aqiba, however, said: For all souls, even souls of animals, are included. But for what purpose is it written "for you"? To indicate only animals for whose support you are responsible, but not for strangers, for whose support you are not responsible. Rabha accompanied Mar Samuel to the pulpit and the latter lectured: One may invite a Gentile on Sabbath, but not on a festival day, because on a festival day he may increase the Israelite's work in his behalf. When a Gentile guest came to Maremar or to Mar Zutra on a festival day, they said to him: If you are satisfied with what we have already done for ourselves, then you are welcome; and if not, you must excuse us, because we must not do any work for you.

MISHNA: It is prohibited to boil water on the festival for the purpose of washing the feet, unless the water is also fit to drink, according to Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel allow it. (All agree, however,) that a fire is to be made for the sole purpose of warming himself by it.

In three things Rabban Gamaliel decides like the school of Shammai more rigorously, namely: They prohibit to commence to preserve the heat of pots for Sabbath on its eve, when it happens to be a festival; to put together the pieces of a candelabrum; and to bake large loaves, but only thin cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: They never used to bake in my father's house large loaves on the festival, but only thin cakes. The sages, however, said to him: What does this usage of your father's family prove, who though strict in this respect nevertheless allowed all Israel to bake on the festival large loaves and thick cakes?

GEMARA: How is the case? If an Erub Tabshilin was made, why do Beth Shammai prohibit it? And if none was made, why do Beth Hillel permit it? Said R. Huna: It may be explained, when the case is that an Erub Tabshilin was not made, but nevertheless what is necessary for one's life, the sages permit. And this is according to his theory elsewhere, where he said: If one has not made an Erub Tabshilin, one loaf and one pot may be baked, and cooked for him, and also light may be kindled for him. In the name of R. Itz'hak it was said: They may roast for him also a small fish. The same we have learned in a Boraitha, with the addition that one pitcher of water may be heated for him. Rabha, however, said: The Mishna can be explained also thus: that an Erub Tabshilin was made, and nevertheless Beth Shammai prohibit it, because the preserving of the heat everybody can see is done only for Sabbath.

"To put together pieces of a candelabrum." What labor is in it? Said R. Hin'na bar Bisna: This refers to a candelabrum whose parts have to be screwed together, and is regarded like an act of building (construction) (see Tract Sabbath, p. 266).

It happened once that Ula came to R. Jehudah; his servant inclined the lamp so that the wick should sooner be extinguished (by the oil being out of its reach). R. Jehudah objected: Did we not learn that whoso puts oil into the lamp is culpable of kindling fire? and whoso removes the oil therefrom is culpable of extinguishing? Answered Ula: The servant did it without my knowledge.

Rabh said: To snuff a lamp on a festival is permitted. Abayi asked Rabba: How is the law to extinguish a conflagration on a festival? When there is danger of loss of life, I do not ask, for it is allowed even on a Sabboth; what I ask is, when there is a pecuniary loss only? He answered: It is not permitted. Abayi objected to him: Did we not learn: A chip of wood must not be extinguished in order to save it. However, for preventing the house or the pot from being filled with smoke, it is permitted? He rejoined: This is in accordance with R. Jehudah, but my decision is in accordance with the majority of the rabbis.

R. Ashi asked Amemar: How is the law to paint the eyes (for a medical purpose) on a festival? When there is danger, e.g., when they prick, or are bloodshot, or drip, or drop tears continually, or are in fever at the first stages, it is not doubtful to me, as this is allowed even on a Sabbath. Where I am uncertain is, when they are almost cured, and the painting is done only for improving the sight? He decided that it is not allowed. R. Ashi objected to him with the same Boraitha which Abayi objected to Rabba as stated above, and Amemar's answer was the same.

Amemar himself, however, used to dye his eyes through a Gentile on the Sabbath. Said R. Ashi to him: What is your opinion in doing it? Because Ula the son of R. Ilai said: All that is necessary for a sick man may be done through a Gentile on Sabbath. And also R. Hamnuna said: All things which are not dangerous, it may be said to a Gentile that he should do them. But when is this the case? When the Gentile does it himself without assistance from the Israelite. But you, Master, assist him in his dyeing by your opening and closing the eyes. And he answered: There is R. Zbid, who has also asked the same question, and I answered him that assistance is not considered a labor at all. The same Amemar allowed that one should dye his eyes on the second day of New Year. Said R. Ashi to him: Did not Rabha say that in the two days of New Year the case is different with an egg (see above, p. 8)? And he answered: My opinion is as that of the sages of Nehardai, who say there is no difference.

"To bake large loaves," etc. The rabbis taught: The school of Shammai said: Thick loaves must not be baked on the Passover. Beth Hillel permit it. What are called thick loaves? Said R. Huna: If it is a span in thickness, for the showbread was thus. R. Joseph opposed: What comparison is this? There it is related of the specialists, who knew their work and were careful; there a great deal of labor was necessary (as stated in Menahoth, that the flour of the showbread required three hundred oscillations and five hundred beatings of the fist); there it was baked with dry wood (as stated in Taanith, that on the fifteenth of Ab they had ceased to cut wood for the Temple); there was a hot oven which was constantly fired, and it was of iron. Should it be compared to common people, to common bread, to wet wood, and a brick oven which may not be heated as required?

Said R. Jeremiah bar Abha in the name of Rabh: I have asked especially our Master, our holy rabbi, what is meant by thick loaves? And he said: A great quantity; i.e., not the loaves are thick, but the quantity of the dough is great. But why does he call them thick loaves? Because it is thick when kneaded. If so, why is it prohibited only on Passover, why not on other festivals also? It means also other festivals, but the Tana was teaching them the laws of Passover, and therefore mentioned that festival. Another Boraitha says plainly: Much bread shall not be baked on a festival, according to Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel allow it.

MISHNA: He (Rabban Gamaliel) decided the law leniently in respect to the following three things: He allowed to sweep on the festival between the couches (or sofas on which the ancients used to eat), to put spices on live coals (after meals), and to prepare a complete roasted kid on the nights of Passover (as a memorial to the Paschal lamb). But the sages prohibit all these.

GEMARA: Said R. Assi: They differ only about the enjoyment of the odor of the spices, when they are already there; but to put the spices on the live coals, all prohibit. The schoolmen propounded a question: How is the law to put fruit in the smoke of spices to flavor them on the festival (as the custom was to do)? R. Jeremiah bar Abha in the name of Rabh said: It is prohibited, but Samuel permitted it. R. Huna said: It is prohibited, because one extinguishes the live coals. Said to him R. Na'hman: Let the Master say, because one kindles the spices? And he answered: In the beginning, when he pours out the spices on the coals, he extinguishes the coals, and afterwards they kindle. R. Jehudah, however, said: That is prohibited only on live coals, but in a heated oven it is permitted. Rabba, however, said: This is also prohibited, because he produces a new odor in the oven. [Rabba and R. Joseph both said: It is unlawful to cover a silk garment with a goblet of spices on a festival in order to impart an odor to it. Why so? Because the garment produces a new odor. But why is this different from grinding or cutting spices for smelling, which is allowed? There the odor is in it when grinding or cutting them, the odor is only increased, but here he produces a new odor altogether.]

Rabha, however, said: Even on live coals it is also permitted, because is it not allowed to put meat on live coals for eating on a festival? R. Gbiha of Be-Kthil at the door of the exilarch lectured: Fuming is allowed. Said Amemar to him: What is meant by fuming? Does it mean to perfume the sleeves of a woman's dress? This must be done by a specialist, and this is certainly prohibited. And if it means to fume to produce good odors, the producing of a new odor is not permitted also? Said R. Ashi: I have declared this law to him and in the name of a great man, that it may be even to produce a new odor, and it is nevertheless permissible, because it is equal to meat on live coals, which is permitted.

MISHNA: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah permitted three things which the other sages prohibit: His cow was going out on a Sabbath with a strap attached to her horns; he permitted also to curry cattle on the festival, and to grind pepper in a pepper-mill. R. Jehudah says: It is not permitted with an iron currycomb, because a wound may be inflicted; but with a wooden comb it is. The sages, however, prohibit both.

GEMARA: Did R. Elazar ben Azariah possess but one cow? Did not Rabh, or according to others R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, say that thirteen thousand calves used R. Elazar ben Azariah to give as tithes from his cattle yearly? We have learned in a Boraitha that the cow mentioned in our Mishna was not his, but his neighbor's, and because he did not protest, it was considered as if it was his own.

"He also permitted to curry cattle," etc. The rabbis taught What is called ‏קרוד‎? An iron comb with small teeth, which produces a wound. What is called ‏קרצוףּ‎? wooden comb with large teeth, which produces no wound. And three Tanaim differ about this law. R. Jehudah holds that if a thing was done even unintentionally, it is prohibited; but we do not take a precautionary measure to a wooden comb, lest one do it with one iron one. The sages are of the same opinion as R. Jehudah, but they say that such a precautionary measure may be taken. R. Elazar b. Azariah, however, holds with R. Simeon, who said that a thing done unintentionally is not prohibited at all, and therefore he permits both. Said R. Na'hman: The Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon, because R. Elazar ben Azariah agrees with him. Said Rabha to R. Na'hman: Why does not the Master say that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah because the sages agree with him? And he answered: I hold with R. Simeon, and confirm my opinion because R. Elazar ben Azariah agrees with him.

MISHNA: A pepper hand-mill is subject to defilement in all the three separate vessels whereof it is composed: the upper, because it is of metal; the middle one, because it is a kind of a sieve (which allows only the finely ground particles to pass through); and the lower one, because it is a vessel of capacity (where the ground pepper is collected).

A child's cart is subject to defilement through pressure (as will be explained in Tract Taharoth), and may be moved on Sabbath from one place to another, provided it is dragged over cloths or carpets. R. Jehudah said: It is not allowed to drag any piece of furniture except such a cart, because it makes but a slight impression on the ground (and does not remove the soil so as to make a furrow).

GEMARA: The cart is subject to defilement. through pressure, because the child is in the habit of sitting on it. It may be handled on Sabbath, because it is a vessel; and may be dragged only on pieces of cloth, but not over the ground itself, because it would make a furrow, and the whole Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who holds that a thing which is made unintentionally, is also prohibited; but according to R. Simeon, who holds that it is not, it may be dragged on the ground also, no matter if it makes a furrow.

42APPENDIX TO PAGE 42.

R. Zutra bar Tubiah said in the name of Rabh: If an eye has rebelled (bulges out), it may be painted even on Sabbath. The hearers thought, that is if the paint was already prepared; but to prepare and bring it through public ground on the Sabbath, it may not. Said one of the scholars, whose name was Jacob, to them: It was explained to me by R. Jehudah that even all this may be done. R. Jehudah permitted to paint an eye on Sabbath. Said R. Samuel bar Jehudah: Who will follow Jehudah, who permits to violate the Sabbath? Finally himself had sore eyes, and be sent to R. Jehudah to inquire whether it was permitted (to paint the eyes) or not, and the answer was: It is permitted to all, but not to you (because you have rejected my decision). And in reality, was it then my decision? It was Mar Samuel's. When his servant had fever in her eyes on a Sabbath, she cried, but none attended her (because of Sabbath). Finally the eye burst. On the morrow Mar Samuel lectured in public that if an eye has bulged out it may be painted on Sabbath, because the veins of the eye are connected with the cells of the heart.

R. Joshua b. Levi said: Unkli may be cured on Sabbath, What is "Unkli"? Said R. Abba; Asthma.--From Abodah Zarah, pp. 28a-29b.}

REGULATIONS CONCERNING FISHING AND HUNTING ON FESTIVALS.

MISHNA: It is not allowed to catch fish from aquaria on festivals, nor to give them food; but one may hunt beasts or birds in parks, and feed them. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Not all aquaria and parks are regarded in the same light. This is the general rule. In case the animals have to be hunted it is prohibited; but when no hunting is required, it is not.

GEMARA: There is a contradiction. We have learned in a Tosephta that in parks beasts and fowls must not be caught on the festival, and must not be fed. The contradiction between the Tosephta and Mishna concerning the beasts could be explained that the Tosephta is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who prohibits this (Sabbath, p. 216); but the contradiction about fowls, how can it be explained? And if it be said, that here also there is no difficulty, because the Tosephta meant an unroofed park, while the Mishna spoke of a roofed park, did not the Mishna in Tract Sabbath state that according to all a fowl must not be caught in a house, and a house is certainly meant a roofed one? Said Rabha bar R. Huna: The Tosephta meant a bird called Durur in Arabic, which it is very difficult to catch, and which never becomes domesticated. As the disciples of R. Ishmael taught: Why is this fowl named Durur? Because to it the house and the field are the same. Now, when we know this, the contradiction about beasts can also be explained, that the Mishna speaks of a small park, and the Tosephta of a great one, where it is difficult to catch. What is called a small park, or a great park? Said R. Ashi: If the shadows of the two walls on the ground touch, then it is small, but otherwise it is great.

"R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says," etc. Said R. Joseph in the name of R. Jehudah quoting Samuel: The Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Said Abayi to him: Is there any one that differs from him, that it is necessary for you to declare that the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon b.

Gamaliel? Said the former: And what difference is it to you? Rejoined Abayi: Shall the Gemara be like a song, to learn it without knowing any reason for each decision?

"This is the general rule," etc. What is meant by "have to be hunted"? The same authority says in the name of the same authority: If one must say, bring a net to catch it. Said Abayi to R. Joseph: Of geese and chickens it is usually said, bring a net, we will catch them. Nevertheless we have learned in a Boraitha that whoso catches geese and chickens is not culpable? Said Rabba bar R. Huna in the name of Samuel: The latter come to their places in the evening, and the owner is responsible for their feeding (therefore whoso catches them is not culpable), but animals of a park do not do so, and the owner is not obliged to feed them.

MISHNA: If nets have been spread for fish or wild game on the eve of a festival, it is not allowed to take from them, on the festival, unless it is known that they have been caught before its commencement. It once happened that a Gentile brought on the festival a present of fish to Rabban Gamaliel, when he said: It is allowed to use them, but I do not wish to accept presents from that man.

GEMARA: Is the deed of R. Gamaliel not in contradiction with the teaching of the Mishna? The Mishna is not completed. It must be read thus: If it is doubtful whether a thing was prepared from the day before, it is prohibited; but R. Gamaliel permits it; and it once happened also that a Gentile brought fish on a festival, in the morning, as a present to R. Gamaliel, and he said: They are permitted, etc. R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: The Halakha does not prevail according to R. Gamaliel. According to others, R. Jehudah declared his decision about the following Boraitha: Beasts from parks may be slaughtered, but not from nets (because it is not known on what day they were found there, on the festival or before it). R. Simeon b. Elazar said: If one found the nets disturbed on the eve of a festival, it is certain that they had been caught before the festival, and they are permitted; but if he came on the festival, and saw them disturbed, it is certain they were caught during the festival, and they are not allowed. Is this saying not contradictory in itself? It says: If he found it disturbed on the eve of a festival, it is certain that they were caught before the festival, and they are allowed, from which it is to be understood, that if it was doubtful, it is not allowed; and in the latter part it says: {If he found it disturbed on the festival, etc., it is certain that they were caught during the festival, and they are not allowed, from which it is to be inferred that when there is a doubt it is permissible? It means to say thus: If he found it disturbed on the eve, it is certain that they were already caught, and are permissible; but if it was doubtful, it is to be considered that they were caught on the festival, and are not permissible. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon b. Elazar.

"When he said, it is allowed," etc. Allowed what? Rabh said: They are permitted to be received, but Levi said, they are permitted to be eaten.

Said Rabh: A man should never absent himself from the house of learning, even for one hour, because I and Levi both were in the college when Rabbi declared this Halakha. In the evening he said: They are permitted to be eaten; but in the morning he said: They are permitted to be received. I, who was in the college in the morning and heard his second decision, gave up the first; but Levi, who was not, did not.

R. Papa said: The Halakha is as follows: If a Gentile brought a present to an Israelite on a festival, if the same kind of productions are found yet on the trees or ground, it is prohibited; and even in the evening, one must wait till the time when such a thing may be gathered and brought. But if that kind of production is no longer found on trees or on the field, then, if the present has been carried from within the legal limit, it may be accepted, but if from beyond the legal limit it may not. And if it has been brought for one Israelite, another may use it.

Rabba bar R. Huna said in the name of Rabh: When one has choked a pond, on the eve of a festival, and on the morrow he found there fish, they are permitted. Said R. Hisda: From the teaching of our Master we can infer that a beast which was overnight in the garden need not have been prepared on the preceding day (may be used). Said R. Na'hman: My colleague has attempted to decide the quarrel of great men. In the case of the fish, the man does nothing; but in this case, he must catch it. But how could R. Hisda decide that it has not to be prepared, did we not learn in a Boraitha, that a beast that was overnight in a garden must have been prepared, and a bird must have had its wings bound that it should not be exchanged for another? And this law is one of those which it has been testified, that they were said by Shemaia and Abtalian? This objection remains.

{p. 49

MISHNA: It is not allowed to kill on a festival an animal suffering from a mortal disease, unless there is time to eat thereof, on that day, at least the size of an olive, roasted. Rabbi Aqiba allows it, if there be only time to eat thereof the size of an olive, raw, even in the very place where it is slaughtered. If it has been killed in the field, the entire carcass may not be carried home on poles or sticks, but only piecemeal, by hand.

GEMARA: Said Rami bar Abba: The taking off the skin, and the cutting of a burnt-offering (which could be burnt without this) is only to teach the latter generations, that one shall not eat meat of a slaughtered animal before the skin is taken off, and was not cut in the usual pieces. Is this also a necessary teaching? Yea, as we have learned in a Boraitha, a man shall not commence eating garlic or onions from the roots, but from the leaves; otherwise his taste is coarse. Likewise, a man should not empty his goblet at a draught, otherwise he resembles a drunkard.

A Boraitha states in the name of R. Meir: Why was the Law given to Israel? Because they are bold (difficult to be vanquished). The disciples of R. Ishmael taught: It is written [Deut. xxxiii. 2]: "From his right hand he gave a fiery law unto them." The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The Israelites are so bold that a fiery law must be given to them. According to others, the law of this people is like fire, because if such a law had not been given to them, no nation and tongue could stand before them. And this is as R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The boldest nation of all nations is Israel.

"The entire carcass may not be brought on poles." The rabbis taught: A blind man should not walk with his stick on a festival, nor a shepherd with his bag (pouch); also, a man must not be carried in a chair. It matters not whether it is a man or a woman. This is not so? Did not R. Jacob bar Iddi send a message that an old man was in his neighborhood and he was carried in a litter (Lectica), and they went to R. Joshuah b. Levi and asked him whether it was lawful, and his answer was, that if he was needed by many people, he could do so. And our Masters use as a sup. port to this opinion words of Ahi Shakia, who said: I have carried R. Huna in a chair on the festival from Hini to Shilli, and back. And R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak told: I have carried Mar Samuel from the shadow into sunshine, and back. The reason is stated, because if many people needed him it was allowed.

Says R. Na'hman to Hama bar Adda, the messenger of Zion: When you go to Palestine, turn down from your road and ascend the "Ladder of Tzur" and visit R. Jacob bar Iddi and ask him: How is their custom with a litter? When he arrived there, R. Jacob bar Iddi was dead, and he found R. Zrika, and asked him: How is your custom in regard to litters? And he answered: So said R. Ammi: One may be carried in them, provided he shall not put his hands on the shoulders of the bearers. What is meant by this? Said R. Joseph the son of Rabha: He shall not be carried in a palanquin (a kind of litter which required that he who is carried should hold by the shoulders of the bearers). Is that so? Did not R. Na'hman allow his wife Yalta to be carried in a palanquin? The case with Yalta was different; she was timid.

Amemar and Mar Zutra were carried on the Sabbath before the festivals on a palanquin, because there was a great crowd and it was feared they would be injured. According to others: Because it was so crowded by the people who came to hear, that they could not pass through.

MISHNA: If a first-born animal fall into a pit on the festival (and it is not known whether it was injured), R. Jehudah says: An expert may descend and see whether it had already an in. curable and permanent blemish, in which case it may be drawn up and killed, but not otherwise. R. Simeon, however, said: If a blemish in a first-born animal was not recognized on the eve of the festival, this is not considered prepared, and must not be killed on the holiday.

GEMARA: On what point do they differ? Shall we assume that the point is, if it is allowed to examine blemishes on the festival, that according to R. Jehudah it is allowed, and according to R. Simeon it is not, then let him say so plainly. Why do they differ here when it fell in a pit? This case was necessary, lest one say that, because here is pity for the living thing which falls in the pit, it shall be allowed to be taken out for the purpose of slaughtering it, if it has a blemish, as R. Joshua said further on (Chap. V., p. 75). Therefore it comes to teach us that even in this case there is yet a difference of opinion.

If it is so, then the Mishna should say, he shall bring it up and slaughter it? And the difference on this point is only whether it should be slaughtered or not? The case is, when he has already brought it up, lest one say that when it is brought up it may be slaughtered. Slaughtered! is it not a first-born without a blemish? That means, if it got a blemish. But if it has the blemish now, is it not yet Muktzah? The case is when it has a blemish which has to be examined on the eve of the festival, and now through its fall it has got a permanent blemish, and it can be slaughtered without any examination, lest one say that because a blemish was from yesterday, the owner had it in his mind, and might be slaughtered to-day, the Mishna comes to teach us that it is not so.

The rabbis taught: Of a first-born animal which was without blemish (if it fall into a pit on a festival), R. Jehudah the Nassi said: An expert shall descend and see whether it had a blemish, and then it may be drawn up and slaughtered; and if not, it shall not be slaughtered. Said R. Simeon b. Menasia to him: Did not the sages say that blemishes must not be examined on a festival? How so? If it got a blemish on the preceding day it must not be examined on the festival; but if it got the blemish on the festival, R. Simeon said that it could not be killed, because it was not prepared from the day before. They all agree, however, that if it was born on a festival with a blemish, it is considered as prepared. Rabba bar R. Huna lectured: If the animal was born with a blemish, the examination may be commenced on the festival. Said R. Na'hman to him: Abba, we have learned if he has transgressed and had already examined, the examination can be useful, and thou sayest that they may commence the examination? Said Abayi: It seems to me that Rabba bar Huna is right, because the Boraitha teaches three cases. If it got a blemish on the eve it must not be examined on the festival. From this we may infer that it must not be examined, but that if it has already been examined, it may be used. (The second case is) if the blemish was got on the festival, R. Simeon said that it is not prepared. From this we see that, even if it has been examined and a real blemish found, it must also not be used. (And the third case is) all agree that if it was born with a blemish on a festival, it is considered prepared. Consequently, the examination may be commenced.

(Is that so?) We know that when R. Oshija came from Palestine he brought a Boraitha. Either when he got a blemish on the eve of the festival, or on the festival, according to the sages it is not to be considered prepared (and the Boraitha must be in accordance with R. Simeon, who says that it must not be examined on the festival; and nevertheless the Boraitha teaches that even if the blemish was from the eve of the festival, it is also not to be considered as prepared, we can say, then, that if it was born with a blemish, it is permissible only when it was examined, but it is not allowed to commence the examination, as R. Na'hman said above?) Yea, it can be said so, but the following Boraitha is yet a contradiction to him (why, then, should you prefer the Boraitha which R. Oshiya brought to the former?) Because the former Boraitha came from the sources of Adda bar Ukhmi, who was known to be erratic in the Boraithas which he taught. Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: It seems from our Mishna also that it is in accordance with the Boraitha of R. Oshiya, because it states: R. Simeon said: If the blemish was not recognized on the eve, etc., it is not considered prepared. Now let us see what is meant by "recognized"? Shall we assume that it was not visible at all? This would be self-evident. We must then say that it was not examined whether it was a permanent blemish or a temporary one; nevertheless it states that it is not considered prepared, even when one slaughtered it. (Consequently the latter part of the Mishna, which states that "all agree," etc., "it is prepared," must be explained as R. Na'hman corrected.)

Hillel asked of Rabha: Does the law of Muktzah exist for a half of Sabbath (i.e., whether a thing is fit for one half of Sabbath, but not for the other half)? How can such a case be? If it was fit in twilight, then it was fit for the whole Sabbath; and if it was not fit at twilight, then it was not fit for the whole Sabbath?

He meant to say it was fit at twilight, but afterwards it got wet from rain, and dried again, as it was in the beginning, and not fit during one part of Sabbath., and then fit again. How is it? The answer was: There is no law of Muktzah for a half of Sabbath. Shall we assume that the above Boraitha, which declares that if it was born with a blemish it shall be considered as prepared, is a support to Rabha's decree? Because the first-born, when it was yet in the womb of its mother, was fit along with its mother (because it was not reckoned a firstling before its birth); and as soon as it is born, it is not fit; and after its being examined by an expert and found blemished it becomes again fit (from this we see that the law of Muktzah does not exist for a half of Sabbath, as it was fit before its birth, became unfit at birth, and became fit again after examination).

Nay, said Abayi in the name of R. Saphra: It may be that the case was, the expert was by when it was born, and saw it was fit from its birth.

R. Jehudah the second possessed a firstling, and sent it to R. Ammi on a festival for examination. At first he thought he would not examine it. Said R. Zrika, or according to others R. Jeremiah, to him: If R. Simeon and R. Jehudah differ, the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah.

At another time he sent it to R. Itz'hak of Naph'ha, and the same happened again. Said R. Abba to R. Zrika: Why did not you let people do a thing in accordance with R. Simeon? And he answered him: Have you heard any decision that the Halakha is according to R. Simeon? And he said: Yea, so I have heard from R. Zera. Said some one of the disciples present: If I will be worthy to go to Palestine, I would like to learn the Halakha from the mouth of R. Zera. Later when he came to Palestine, he asked R. Zera: Did the Master say that the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon? And he answered: I did not say it is so, but I said: It seems so to me, because the Mishna relates, R. Simeon said: If the blemish was not recognized while it was yet day, it is not prepared, and the Boraitha teaches the same in the name of the sages (in plural). And I thought the Boraitha did so because the Halakha prevails accordingly. How is it in reality? Said R. Joseph: Come and hear. I will base my decision on the words of great men, that R. Simeon ben Pazzi in the name of R. Joshuah b. Levi, quoting R. Jose b. Saul in the name of Rabbi, upon the authority of the Holy Assembly of Jerusalem, said that R. Simeon (b. Menasseh) and his colleagues decide the above Halakha according to R. Meir. How can they have decided it according to R. Meir? They lived (the Holy Assembly of Jerusalem) in an earlier age than he. Say, they decided it in accordance with the system of R. Meir (this will be explained in Tract B'choroth).

Ammi of Vardinaa was the examiner of the firstlings of the Nasi; and he did not examine on festivals. When this was told to R. Ammi, he said, he does right. Is it so? Did not R. Ammi himself examine the blemishes of the firstlings? Nay, he used to see them the preceding day, but he kept his decision until the morrow, when he asked the owner how the animal had come by the blemish. As it happened when a man brought a firstling before Rabha on the eve of a festival, after noon, and at that time Rabha was washing his head. He raised his eyes, and looked on the blemish, and told the man: Go away to-day, and come to-morrow. The next day he asked him what was the cause of the blemish, and he answered: I have given it barley on one side of thorns, and it was on the other side; when it wanted to eat, it put forth its head between the thorns and thus tore its lip. And Rabha asked him: Perhaps you did it intentionally? And he said: No.

MISHNA: An animal which dies on the festival may not be removed thereon. It happened once, when Rabbi Tarphon was questioned on the subject, and also concerning a separate piece of dough, which had become polluted, he went to the college and inquired. They told him: They may not be removed from the spot.

GEMARA: Shall we say that this anonymous Mishna is not in accordance with R. Simeon (see Sabbath, p. 375)? Nay, the Mishna can be explained in accordance with him, but he owns that animals that died on Sabbath are prohibited. This would be right according to Mar bar Amemar, who said in the name of Rabh that R. Simeon owns it; but according to Mar b. R. Joseph, who declares in the name of Rabha that R. Simeon differs, even when the animals died on Sabbath, and said that they may be used? (What can be said to that?) Zera explained this Mishna, that it refers to an animal that was consecrated for sacrifice. And it seems Zera is right in his explanation, because the Mishna speaks further on about Hala that became unclean; and as the Hala was a consecrated thing, so must be also the animal in question.

MISHNA: An association for the purpose of jointly purchasing an animal may not be formed on the festival; but if this was arranged before the festival, the animal so purchased may be slaughtered and shared on the festival.

GEMARA: What is meant by "may not be formed"? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The price of the animal must not be fixed on the festival; but how shall it be done? Said Rabh: Two animals shall be brought, and placed side by side, and it shall be said: The value of this animal shall be as the value of that. We have learned also in a Boraitha: One shall not say to his neighbor: I will be a partner with you in this animal for one Sela or more; but he may say: I would be a partner with you for one half, third, or quarter of it.

MISHNA: R. Jehudah said: (A butcher who sells meat on a festival) may weigh it against a vessel or hatchet; but according to the sages he may not even look on the scales at all.

GEMARA: What is meant by "at all"? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to preserve the meat from mice, he must not put it on the scales. Said R. Iddi bar Abbin: That is, when the scales hang on the lever. R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel says again: A butcher who is a specialist must not weigh the meat on his hand. He says again: The same must not weigh the meat in water. R. Hyya bar Ashi said: It is not permitted to make a hole in the meat, to use it as a handle. Said Rabina: But if he made it with his hand, not with a tool, it is allowed. R. Huna said: One may make a sign upon the meat, as Rabba bar R. Huna would cut the meat in the shape of a triangle for a sign. R. Hyya and R. Simeon the Great used to weigh one piece against the other, and they did it according to R. Joshua, as we learn in the following Boraitha: R. Joshua said: One may weigh one piece against the other. And R. Joseph said: The Halakha prevails according to R. Joshua, because there is a Mishna in Tract B'choroth in accordance with his decision.

MISHNA: Knives may not be ground or set on the festival; but it is permitted to sharpen one knife with the other.

GEMARA: Said R. Huna: It is only on a whetstone, but on wood one may. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even on a whetstone it is only prohibited to sharpen, but to remove the fat from it one may. We may infer from this, that on wood it is allowed even to sharpen.

Who is the Tana who holds that on a whetstone it is not permitted? Said R. Hisda: It is at any rate not according to R. Jehudah, as we have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah allows to make on a festival even the arrangements for the preparation of food (Sabbath, p. 309).

Said Rabha to R. Hisda: Shall we lecture in thy name that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah? And R. Hisda answered: It may be the will of the Lord that all good things like this shall ye lecture in my name.

R. Nehemiah b. R. Joseph said: Once I was standing before Rabha, and saw that he took the knife and made passes with it over a basket. And I said to him: Does Master intend to sharpen it, or to remove the fat? And he said: To remove the fat. But I saw that he intended to sharpen it. From this it is understood that the Halakha prevails thus, but is not to be proclaimed to the people. Abayi told that the same thing happened to him and his Master, Rabba.

The schoolmen propound a question: May one give the slaughtering-knife to the wise for examination on the festival? R. Mari the son of R. Bizna allowed this, but the rabbis prohibited. R. Joseph, however, said: A scholar (Talmud Hakham) may examine the knife for his own use, and then lend it to others. R. Joseph said again: A knife that becomes blunt may be sharpened by pressure, provided that the knife becomes only blunt, but not injured.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: A spit that became crooked must not be repaired on a festival. Is not this self-evident? He meant to say, that even with the hand, without the aid of tools, it is not allowed. The same says again: After the meat has been roasted on the spit, it may not be handled more (because the blood defiling it makes it unfit for use until cleaned). Said R. Adda bar Ah'bah in the name of R. Malkiya: He may, nevertheless, take it to put into a corner, the same as it is permitted to do with a thorn that is seen in public ground. (Sabbath, p. 75.)

MISHNA: One must not say to a butcher: Give me meat for a Denar; but the butcher may slaughter the animal, and divide it among the customers.

One may say to another (on the festival), fill me this vessel, but it must not be a vessel appropriated to measure with. R. Jehudah says: If a measure is used it must not be quite filled. Abba Saul b. Batnit used to fill his measures on the day before the festival, and delivered them to the customers on the festival. The same Saul said: One may do so even on the intermediate days, on account of the froth in the measure. The sages, however, say: One may do so also on week-days in order to let out the entire contents of his measure into the vessels of his customers.

GEMARA: What is meant by "vessel appropriated to measure with"? Said Rabha: That is, he shall not mention the kind of measure, but if the vessel is a measure he may do so. And R. Jehudah comes to teach that even this must not be done. From this we see that, about the enjoyment of the festival, R. Jehudah is more rigorous, and the sages are more lenient; but did we not learn in the Mishna about the scales (p. 55), that R. Jehudah is more lenient and the sages are more rigorous? And this would be a contradiction to that teaching? It presents no difficulty. The above Mishna referred to a thing which was not a weight, but this speaks of a vessel that is a measure. This reconciles the contradiction between one teaching of R. Jehudah. and the other. And as regards what sages teach about the scales? They merely say that a man shall not do as is usually done on week-days, but here he does not do as on week-days, because it is not usual that a man should give wine to his guest to drink from a measure.

"Abba Saul b. Batnit," etc. A Boraitha taught: One may do it in the intermediate days to prevent interruption in the house of learning (if he will busy himself with the measuring, he will fail to go to the college).

The rabbis taught: Abba Saul collected three hundred pitchers of wine barely from the froth of the measures; and his colleagues collected the same amount from what remained in the measures after emptying them for the customers. Both brought this wine to the treasurers of charity at Jerusalem. The treasurers said to them: It is not necessary for you to do so (because it is your own). But they replied: We do not wish to use (because we do not consider it ours). And the treasurers rejoined: If you are so rigorous towards yourselves, go and dispose of it for the benefit of the people.

R. Hisda accompanied Rabbana Uqba, and the latter lectured: One must not measure barley to give it to cattle; but one may nevertheless take a Kab full, or two Kabs, and give it to the cattle without fear. But the baker (cook) may measure the quantity of spices for putting into the pots, lest he spoil the flavors.

R. Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Rabh said: A woman may measure the flour on a festival for her dough, for the purpose of separating a due share of the first dough. Samuel, however, prohibited to do so. But did not the disciples of Samuel teach in his name that it is allowed? Said Abayi: Now, when the disciples declared in his name that it is permitted, and from himself it was beard that it is not, we may assume that he retracted his decision in order to teach us how to act.

The rabbis taught: One must not resieve flour on the festival; but R. Papias and R. Jehudah b. Bthera both permit it. All agree, however, that if some dust or a chip fell into the flour, that may be done. One disciple taught in the presence of Rabina that if a chip has fallen into it, he shall remove it with the hand. And Rabina rejoined that this is by an a fortiori argument, not allowed, because it looks as though he sifts it.

Rabha bar R. Huna the Minor lectured at the gate of Nehardai: One may resieve flour on the festival. Said R. Na'hman to the people of Nehardai: Go and tell Abba, Take thy favor and put it on the thorns (i.e., he did not any good with his lecture). Go and see how many sieves are used in Nehardai on the festival (even before his lecture).

The wife of R. Joseph has sifted flour on the back of a sieve, and he said to her: See, I want to have good bread (it means, you should not make any change). The wife of R. Ashi sifted the flour on the back of the table (to show a change from the week-days). Said R. Ashi: My wife is the daughter of Rami bar Hama, who was very particular in his deeds, and if she had not seen it done in the house of her father, she would not do it.

MISHNA: One may go to a shopkeeper with whom one is used to deal, and say to him: "Give me so many eggs or nuts," because the master of a house is used to count similar articles by numbers.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: One may go to his shepherd who is an acquaintance, and ask him for one goat or one sheep; to his butcher, to ask him for a shoulder or leg; to the birdseller, and ask him for one old or young pigeon, to his baker, and ask him for a loaf or roll; and to his grocer, and ask him for twenty eggs or fifty nuts or ten peaches or five pomegranates or one lemon--provided one does not mention any numbers of measures. R. Simeon b. Elazar said: Provided one does not mention the prices.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE CARRYING AND HANDLING OF THINGS ON THE FESTIVAL.

MISHNA: If one has to transport jars of wine from one place to another (on a festival) he must not carry them in a basket or a case, but on the shoulder, or in his hand in front of his person. The same is the case when he has to carry straw; he must not put the bundle on the shoulder behind, but must carry it in his hand. One may commence to take a heap of straw (for fuel), but not of stacks of wood in an unused yard behind the house.

GEMARA: A Boraitha taught: If it is impossible to change the manner usual on week-days, it may be done as ordinarily.

Rabha has ordered in Mehuzah as follows: "A heavy burden which a man carries on a week-day with great trouble, if he has to bear it on a festival, he may carry it with the help of a Rigla (a long, crooked pole for bearing burdens), and though it is also heavy and a trouble, it is a change of the manner, on weekdays. And what one man carries on week-days with the help of a Rigla, two men shall carry. The burden which two men carry on a pole on their shoulders, they shall carry on a festival with the hand, and what is carried with the hand, shall on the festival be carried with a cloth." All this shall be done, if possible; but if it is impossible, it shall be carried as usually, because the Master said: If it is impossible to change the manner it is allowed.

Rabha bar R. Hanin said to Abayi: A Mishna teaches: It is prohibited to clap with the hands, strike on the hips, and to dance on a festival. And in our time we see people do so, and we do not say to them anything. And he answered: And according to your theory, come and see the women who take their cans and go and stand at the gates of the entry, which is also prohibited, and we say nothing to them (Would you also blame us for this?). This is not so (because it is a rule). Let Israel do things unintentionally rather than intentionally (i.e., they were sure that if it was told to them, they would not listen, and to preserve them from conscious transgression, they keep silence). And there is no difference in such a case between a biblical and a rabbinical prohibition. Because the adding from the eve of the Day of Atonement to the Day of Atonement (about half an hour) is biblical, nevertheless we see women eating and drinking till dark, and we say nothing.

"But not of stacks of wood," etc. R. Kahana said: From this it may be inferred that we must not commence to take of a whole store (stock storehouse), because it is "designated." Then it would be according to R. Jehudah, who holds the theory of Muktzah. How then would be explained the beginning of the Mishna, that one may begin to take of a heap of straw, that would be according to R. Simeon, who does not hold the theory of Muktzah? The Mishna refers to spoiled straw (which is no longer fit for food of animals). But it may yet be used for bricks? It refers to a case when there were thistles (or thorns) in the straw.

MISHNA: Wood may not be taken from a booth, but the pieces lying by may be used.

GEMARA: R. Hyya bar Joseph taught before R. Johanan the following Boraitha: Wood must not be taken from a booth, but only the pieces lying near it. R. Simeon, however, permits it. But all agree that from a booth made for the Festival of Tabernacles it must not be taken then. If the booth was made conditionally, all must be done according to the condition.

It has been said: R. Simeon permits it. But did he not demolish a tent? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: The case is when the tent is already demolished, or so weak as to fall down soon, so that even on the preceding day he had the intention to take wood of it.

The Boraitha states: If the booth was made conditionally, etc. Can then a condition affect it? Did we not learn in Succah (p. 10), that R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Aqiba: that the wood of the Succah is prohibited in all the seven days at all events? This part of the Boraitha means an ordinary booth, not a tabernacle.

MISHNA: One may bring wood from the field when it is a stack, and from a wood-shed, even of the dispersed pieces of wood. What is called a wood-shed? If it is near the city. So is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Jose, however, said, If there is a door which can be locked, even if it is within the legal limit.

GEMARA: R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: Wood may be brought only from the stacks that are in the wood-shed, but not dispersed pieces. Did not our Mishna teach that from a wood-shed may be taken even dispersed pieces? The Mishna is only according to an individual Tana, but the other sages differ from it. Rabha said: Leaves of a vineyard or of branches, although they are gathered and lie together, because by a wind they may be dispersed, are to be considered as dispersed already, and may not be used. But if one had put a heavy thing on them the preceding day, they may be used.

"What is called a wood-shed," etc. The schoolmen propound a question: Did the Mishna mean both? Did it mean that it is near the city and has a door, and R. Jose comes to teach if it has a door it is enough, if it is not near the city, but within the legal limit, or when it has no door, even near to a city, also not? Come and hear: Because R. Jose teaches that if it can be entered through a door, and the door can be locked, it is allowed even within the legal limit, we may infer that R. Jose decides in both cases leniently. Said R. Sala in the name of R. Jeremiah: The Halakha prevails according to R. Jose, leniently.

MISHNA: It is not permitted to cut wood from new beams, even from an old beam that was broken on the festival; neither may wood be cleft with an axe, or saw, or bite-hook, but with a chopping-knife only.

GEMARA: Has not the first part of the Mishna said that we must not cut wood at all? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Mishna is not completed, and must be read thus: It is not allowed to cut from a pile of logs, neither from a beam that was broken on the festival; but from a beam that was broken the preceding day. And when they cut it, they shall not do it with an axe, etc. The same we have learned in the following Boraitha: One may not cut wood from a pile of beams, nor from a beam broken on the festival, because they are not considered prepared while it is yet day.

"But with a chopping-knife only." Said R. Hinna bar Salmia in the name of Rabh: It is only with the side of the blade used for chopping wood, but with the broad side wherewith one can cleave beams, it is not allowed.

MISHNA: A house filled with fruits, if a hole was made, it is allowed to take fruit through this hole. R. Meir, however, said one may make a hole in the house, to commence with, for the purpose of taking the fruit.

GEMARA: Why so? Is he not demolishing a tent? Said R. Nehuma bar Adda in the name of Samuel: The Mishna refers to a house of bricks without mortar. R. Zera said: R. Meir allowed this only on a festival, but not on Sabbath. The same we have learned plainly in a Boraitha. Samuel said: If the doors of the cellars are tied with ropes, one may untie; but he may not untwist the ropes themselves, nor cut them off. When, however, with such ropes vessels were tied, he may untwist them and cut them off, and there is no difference between Sabbath and a festival in this case.

An objection was raised from the following Boraitha: If the doors of the cellars are tied with ropes, on Sabbath, one may untie, but he may not untwist the ropes themselves, nor cut them off. On a festival, however, all this is allowed? The Boraitha is according to R. Meir, who allows this on a festival to commence with, but I say according to the rabbis. But did the rabbis differ with R. Meir that if the doors of the cellars, etc.? Have we not learned in another Boraitha, that the sages agree with R. Meir concerning this case? Samuel holds with another Boraitha which stated differently.

MISHNA: It is not permitted to make a cavity in a lump of potter's clay for the purpose of using it as a lamp, because a utensil is thereby formed; neither may charcoal be made on a festival, nor the wick of a lamp be cut in two. R. Jehudah says: With fire it may be done.

GEMARA: Who is the Tana who holds that when a hole is made in such a lump it is called a utensil? Said R. Joseph: That is R. Meir (who states so in Tract Kelim).

The rabbis taught: One must not make a hole in a lump of clay to use it as a lamp, nor plates used by rustics (who are not particular about fine china, but use them as soon as made, before they have been hollowed out and baked in fire). R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, allows it.

"Neither may charcoal be made," etc. Is this not self-evident? What use can one make on that day of charcoal? Taught R. Hyya: The Mishna refers to those who need the charcoal for an olearius on this day (i.e., a machine to heat oil to be fit for the body and clothes). Is it allowed then to take a bath on this day? As Rabha had explained in another place that it was allowed to go to sweat before it was prohibited, so also can this Mishna be explained to mean sweating, before the prohibition was made (see Sabbath, pp. 71, 72).

"Nor the wick of a lamp," etc. Why is it not allowed to do it with a knife? Because he makes of it a utensil (i.e., he makes two out of one). Is not the same with fire? Taught R. Hyya: R. Jehudah meant to say that the ends shall be placed in two lamps, and shall be separated by burning the middle part, (and he only kindles the lamps).

R. Nathan bar Abba said in the name of Rabh: One may snuff a wick on the festival. Bar Qappara taught: Six things were said about a wick: three rigorously and three leniently. Rigorously: One must not commence to braid the wick, nor singe, nor cut it in two; and leniently: One may twist it with the hand, soak in oil, and make two wicks by burning the middle part. R. Nat an bar Abba in the name of Rabh said again: The rich men of the Babylonians are among those who descend to Gehenna; as it once happened Sabathai bar Merenus came to Babylon and asked them to support him in some business, and they did not; and he asked that they should feed him at least, and they also refused. Then he said: They are descendants of the "mixed multitude," as it is written [Deut. xiii. 18]: "And grant thee mercy, and have mercy upon thee." From this we infer that whosoever has mercy for creatures, he is surely of the children of Abraham our father, but whosoever has not mercy for creatures, it is certain he is not. The same says again in the name of the same authority: Whosoever is dependent upon the table of his neighbor, the whole world is dark for him. As it is written [Job xv. 23]: "He wandereth abroad for bread, (saying), Where is it? he knoweth that there is ready at his hand the day of darkness." R. Hisda said: His life is no life at all.

The rabbis taught: There are three men whose lives are not counted as lives at all: He who is dependent on the table of his neighbor; he whose wife dominates over him; and he who has bodily suffering. According to others, he who has no more than one shirt.

MISHNA: One may not break pieces of earthenware, nor cut paper for the purpose of roasting salted fish on it. Ashes from the oven or hearth may not be removed, but they may be moved to one side. Two barrels must not be brought near each other, to place a pot on them over the fire, nor may a piece of wood be used to support a pot, nor a door. Cattle may not be driven on the festival with a stick; but R. Eliezer b. Simeon permits it.

GEMARA: Why so? Because he produces thereby utensils.

"Ashes of the oven," etc. R. Hyya b. Joseph taught in the presence of R. Na'hman that if it is not possible to bake in the oven unless one removes the ashes, one may do so. It happened to the wife of R. Hyya that half a brick from the wall of the oven fell down into the oven on a festival. Said R. Hyya to her: See to its removal, because I like to have good bread. Rabha said to his servant: Roast for me a duck, and see that it shall not be singed. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: We were told by R. Aha of Hutzl that the Master's servants, when the oven is closed, smear it with clay on the festival. And he answered: We live near the River Euphrates, where clay is ready at hand. The case is, when he makes a sign on the clay on the previous day. Said Rabina: To knead ashes, it is permitted (because they cannot keep for a long period).

"Nor may a piece of wood," etc. The rabbis taught: A pot must not be supported with a piece of wood nor a door, because wood is prepared only for fuel. R. Simeon, however, allows this. Cattle must not be driven with a stick, but R. Eliezer the son of R. Simeon permits it. Shall we assume that R. Eliezer holds with his father, that no theory of Muktzah exists? Nay, he is more lenient than his father; for his father would assent that they must not be driven with a stick, because it seems as if they are taken to the market.

Hizra (Abhazar in Arabic), R. Na'hman prohibited to use for the purpose of roasting on it meat; but R. Shesheth permits it. If it was dry, all agree it is permitted; they differ only when it is wet yet. Whosoever prohibits it, does it because it is not fit for fuel, and whosoever permits it, does it because in a great fire this also can be used. The Halakha, however, prevails thus: That a dry one is allowed, but not a wet one.

Rabha lectured: A woman shall not enter a wood-shed to take a crooked piece of wood for a poker; and if a poker was broken on the festival, it must not be burned, because fire may be made with vessels, but not broken vessels (Sabbath, p. 270). Shall we assume that Rabha holds with R. Jehudah regarding the theory of Muktzah? Did not Rabha say to his servant: Roast me a duck, and throw the entrails to the cat? With the entrails it is different; because, as they become putrified he made up his mind the day before that they must be given to the cat.

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: One may take a splinter from the wood lying near him to clean his teeth with, and gather in the yard small pieces of wood, and burn them, because whatever is in the yard may be considered as prepared for the festival. But the sages allow one to pick up only those pieces that lie near him, and only to burn them. Fire may not be produced on the festival from wood, stones, dust or earth, or from water; nor may one heat tiles to broil food on them.

GEMARA: R. Jehudah said: To food fit for cattle the law of making a utensil does not apply (e.g., to take straw or other fodder of cattle, and break it for cleaning the teeth, or so, is permitted; because, being fit for cattle, it may be handled, etc.).

R. Kahana objected him: We have learned that branches of spice-trees may be handled to enjoy the odor, and to fan with them a sick man. One may grind, also, to produce an agreeable odor; but one must not break them for the purpose of enhancing the odor. If he did so, he is not liable to a sin-offering; but if he broke them for the purpose of cleaning the teeth with them, he is liable. And he answered: If the Boraitha had said that one may not break them for the purpose of cleaning the teeth, it would be a great difficulty to me; much more, when it says he is liable to a sin-offering for it. The Boraitha must be incomplete and must be stated thus: He may grind with his hand for the purpose of odor; he may break them for this purpose, but the case is only when they are yet soft. But when they are already hard, he shall not break them. If he did so, however, he is not culpable, although it is prohibited; but if he broke for the purpose of cleaning the teeth, he is liable to a sin-offering.

In one Boraitha we have learned, he may break it in order to smell it, and in another one--that he must not break it for this purpose? Said R. Zera in the name of R. Hisda: It presents no difficulty. The Boraitha which allows it means when they are soft, and the other one, when they are dry. R. A'ha bar Jacob opposed: Why shall dry ones not be allowed? Did not a Mishna (Sabbath, p. 332) state: One may break open a cask to cut dry figs therefrom, etc.? Furthermore: Rabha and Rabbin, the sons of R. Adda, both say: When we were at the house of R. Jehudah, he used to break twigs off a spice-tree, and give us sticks of the same, although the sticks were so large that they could be used for an axe or a spade handle. Therefore we must say that of the two Boraithas (mentioned above) one is according to R. Eliezer and one according to the rabbis of the following Boraitha: "R. Eliezer said: One may take a splinter from the wood lying near him to clean his teeth with; but the sages say: He can take it only from a manger. All agree that he shall not break it off, and if he did so, to clean the teeth or to open the door with it, if unintentionally on a Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering, and if intentionally on a festival, he is liable to the punishment of stripes. So is the decree of R. Eliezer. The sages, however, say: In both cases he is free, because this is only a Shbuth (Sabbath-rest, rabbinically)." Now, the Boraitha which states that he must not break it off is in accordance with R. Eliezer, who says there that he is liable to a sin-offering; and the Boraitha which states that he may do so is in accordance with the rabbis, who say there that he is free, even if he broke it off for the purpose of cleaning his teeth. Here, however, when it is for the purpose of smelling, it is allowed to commence with. But does not R. Eliezer hold what is stated in the above Mishna, that one may break open a cask, etc.? Said R. Ashi: According to R. Eliezer, the Mishna must be explained that the cask was cemented with resin, and it is impossible to use it afterwards as a vessel.

"And gather in the yard." The rabbis taught: He may gather in the yard and burn, because all things that are in the yard are considered as prepared, provided he does not make of them heaps. R. Simeon, however, permits even this. On what point do they differ? One holds that if he makes heaps, it seems as if he prepared them for the day subsequent to the festival; but the other holds that his pot proves that it is for to-day.

"Fire may not be produced," etc. Why so? Because to produce a new thing is not lawful.

"One may not heat tiles," etc. What labor is that? Said Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of Rabbi Johanan: The Mishna refers to new tiles, that must be examined as to whether they can stand fire. According to others, it is a labor because they must be heated long, until they become hard.

The rabbis taught: New ovens or hearths are considered as ordinary vessels that may be handled in the yard; but they must not be anointed with oil, nor cleaned with a wet cloth, nor cooled in cold water to harden it. But if all this should be done only for the purpose of baking on that day, it is allowed.

The rabbis taught: The head and the feet of an animal may be scalded, also singed. The hair may be removed by fire, but not with lime, clay, or earth; nor must it be cut off with scissors. Herbs must not be cut out with the same scissors with which they are usually detached from the ground. But one may prepare χιναρα (artichoke) and thistle and bake in a large oven, and water may be formed in an "antikhi" (a kind of kettle: see Sabbath, p. 74). A new large oven, however, must not be heated on the festival, because it may burst.

The rabbis taught: One must not blow bellows, but one may blow through a pipe. A spit must not be sharpened and fixed (for the purpose of roasting).

The rabbis taught: A cane must not be splintered for the purpose of roasting salted fish. A nut, however, may be cracked through a piece of cloth, without fear lest that the latter be torn.

MISHNA: R. Eliezer said again: In a Sabbatical year a man may place himself on the eve of Sabbath at the place where figs or raisins are kept, and say: From there I will take to-morrow. But, according to the sages, he must point out the exact spot, and say: I will take from this point to that point.

GEMARA: In a Mishna (Maasroth, Chap. IV., 2) it is stated: If children had saved dates from the eve of Sabbath and forgot to separate the tithe, when the Sabbath is over they must not eat them until the tithe is separated. Also in another Mishna (ibid. III., 1): If one passed dates through his yard to dry them, his household may eat of them moderately. Now, Rabba asked R. Na'hman: Does the Sabbath fix the time for separating tithe even from things the labors belonging to which are not finished yet? Shall we assume that because it is written [in Is. lviii.]: "Thou shalt call the Sabbath a delight," it fixes the time of tithing even for things the labors belonging to which are not finished yet, or it fixes the time only for things the labors on which are finished and not otherwise? And he answered: Sabbath fixes the time in any event. The former said again: Why shall not Sabbath be equal to a yard which does not fix the time for things on which the labor is not finished yet? Let the law of Sabbath be the same? And he answered: We have an explicit teaching that the Sabbath fixes the time for the thing in any event. Said Mar Sutra the son of R. Na'hman: Our Mishna which states that only on Sabbatical years it may be done so, and not in an ordinary year, must also be explained, that because the Sabbatical year is exempt from tithe, he may do so; but in an ordinary year it must not be done so, because the Sabbath fixes it for tithe. When Rabbin came from Palestine he said, however, in the name of R. Johanan, that Sabbath, Heave-offering, a Yard, and Price all do not fix for tithe, only in things on which all the labor belonging to them is already done.

Sabbath--to state that the law is not after Hillel in the following Boraitha: If one transferred fruit from one place to another to cut it, and Sabbath overtook him, R. Jehudah said that only Hillel prohibited to eat it before separating tithe, but all his colleagues differ from him.

A Yard--to state that the law is not after R. Jacob in the following Mishna, which says that whoso passes dates through the yard, his household may eat of them moderately, and they are free from tithe. And a Boraitha, in addition to this Mishna, states that R. Jacob says tithe must be separated, and R. Jose b. Jehudah frees it from tithe.

Heave-offering--to state that the law is not after R. Eliezer in the following Mishna: Fruit of which the heave-offering was separated before all the labors belonging to it were finished, R. Eliezer prohibits to eat from moderately, but the sages allow this.

And Price--as we learned in the following Boraitha: Whose, bought dates from a man of the common people in a place where the majority of gardeners press the dates, he may eat of them moderately; and when he comes to give tithe of them, he may separate tithe from it (but it is not necessary to separate heave-offering). And from this Boraitha we have learned three things: Firstly, that the price which is made does not fix for tithe until all the labor is done; secondly, that the majority of the common people do separate tithes; and thirdly, that if one comes to separate tithes from fruits bought from one of the common people, from a doubt lest the seller had not yet separated the tithe, he may separate it even from things the labors belonging to which are not yet finished.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING LABORS PERMITTED AND NOT PERMITTED ON BIBLICAL FESTIVALS.

MISHNA: It is allowed to throw down fruit (kept on the roof for drying) by a trap-door (into the yard) on the festival, but not on Sabbath. It is also allowed to cover fruit, or jars of wine or oil, with vessels to protect them from rain. One may also place a vessel to receive rain on Sabbath.

GEMARA: Of which quantity does the Mishna speak? Said R. Zera in the name of R. Assi, according to others R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan: The same quantity which we have learned in the Mishna (in Sabbath, p. 276). One may even clear off four or five chests of straw or grain in order to remove obstacles to instruction, etc. But perhaps there it is different, because there are obstacles to instruction; but here, where it is not the case, it may be a less quantity? Or, on the contrary, there the Mishna speaks of Sabbath, which is rigorous, therefore a slight quantity is allowed. But here it is a festival, perhaps a greater quantity is allowed? It can be interpreted even in another way: There, where there are no damages of money, a quantity from four to five is allowed; but here, where there can be damages of money, even more is also allowed? And another question: There the Mishna teaches that one must not clear out a whole barn, and Samuel explained this that the Mishna meant he shall not clear out the whole barn for fear he will notice pits and would like to fill them up (ibid. 276). How is the law in our case? Shall we assume that because Sabbath is rigorous, the precautionary measure must be taken; but in the case of the festival, which is lenient, it need not be taken? Or, on the contrary, there, where although the reason is the fear of interruption in the house of learning, yet it is not allowed to clear the whole barn, how much the more here, where such a reason does not exist?

And another question: Here the Mishna teaches that fruit must be thrown through a trap-door, and R. Na'hman said in addition to this, that it is allowed only from that roof; but to throw it from this roof to another, it is not allowed. And so it was also taught in a Boraitha, that the fruit must not be carried from one roof to another, although the roofs are of equal altitude. Shall we assume that only in the case of the festival which is lenient this is prohibited as a precautionary measure, lest one shall come to hold cheap the holiday, and will do other things, but on Sabbath which is rigorous and no such fear exists, perhaps this is allowed? Or, on the contrary, as here, where the fruit can be damaged, we do not allow this; there, where no such a fear exists, so much the more it is not allowed. And another question: A Boraitha in addition to this Mishna teaches he shall not let it down by ropes and also not by ladders. Shall we say that only here, where the fear of the interruption in the house of learning does not exist, it is prohibited; but there, where such a fear does exist, it is allowed? Or, on the contrary, here, although there is fear of damages, it is not allowed, so much the more there? All these questions are not decided.

"And fruits may be covered." Said Ula: Even piled-up bricks not mortared may be covered. R. Itz'hak, however, said only fruit fit for consumption may be covered with vessels, but no other things.

"One may place vessels to receive rain." A Boraitha taught: When the vessel was full, he might empty it, and put it in its former place again; and so repeatedly. The handmill of Abayi was exposed to the rain (and he had not enough vessels to protect it). He came to Rabba his Master, and asked; and he answered: Go and place your bed in that room (where the handmill was), and then the handmill will be considered as a night chamber, which may be removed from a bedroom (and then he can remove the bed again). Abayi himself considered the law and said to himself: May one turn a clean thing into an objectionable thing intentionally? While he sat and thought thus, the handmill cracked. Said he: I deserve this punishment because I was disobeying my Master.

Samuel said: A chamber-pot and similar vessels may be removed, and voided on the garbage; and then washed, and returned. The schoolmen who heard this thought that the dirt may be removed only together with another vessel, but not without another vessel? Come and hear: Once a dead mouse was found in the place where R. Ashi's spices were kept, and he said: Take it by its tail, and throw it out.

MISHNA: All transgressions of the precept of Shbuth, whether by any optional actions, or actions for religious purposes, are also such on the festival. The following actions are forbidden on account of Shbuth: To climb trees, mount an animal, swim in water, clap with the hands, strike on the hips, or dance. The following are prohibited as optional actions: To administer justice, to acquire a woman as a wife (by giving a ring, money, etc.), to take off the shoes of one refusing to marry the deceased brother's widow (Halitzah), or to marry such a brother's widow. The following actions are prohibited as though they are actions for religious purposes: To consecrate anything, to value sacred things, to pronounce anything as devoted (to the service of the Temple), to separate heave-offerings and tithes. All these have been decided to be prohibited on the festival, and a fortiori on Sabbath. (This is the rule): There is no difference between the Sabbath and the festival, except that the preparation of food is permitted on the latter.

GEMARA: To climb trees--lest one tear off something; mount an animal--lest one should cut off a twig (to drive it therewith); to swim--lest one make a swimming bladder; to clap the hands, strike on the hips, dance--all lest one fix musical instruments.

"The following are prohibited as optional." To administer justice: is this not a religious act? The case is, when there is a better man than he who can perform it. To acquire a wife: is this not a religious act? The case is, when he has already a wife and children. The ceremony of Halitzah and Jibum: are these not religious duties? The case is, when there is an elder brother than he, and the duty falls on the elder brother. And the reason why all these are prohibited is as a precautionary measure, lest he come to write. And these are prohibited, though religious acts: as a precautionary measure, lest he will come to buy and sell. To separate heave-offerings, etc.: is not this self-evident? Taught R. Joseph: The case is, when he, wants to give it to the priest on the same day. But the law applies only to things wherefrom it is fit to separate the day before; but if he kneads dough on the festival, the first dough maybe separated and given to the priest. All these on the festival, etc.: there is a contradiction to this (in the first Mishna of the chapter): "One may throw fruit on the festival, but not on Sabbath"? Said R. Joseph: There is no

73 difficulty: Our Mishna is in accordance with Eliezer: that the precautionary measures taken for Sabbath are to be taken also for festivals; and the other Mishna is according to Joshua, who says: When mother and son fall in a pit, the first maybe taken out for slaughtering, and then by connivance the other. R. Papa, however, said that the above Mishna is in accordance with Beth Shammai, and the first Mishna is in accordance with Beth Hillel. But perhaps it is not so? The statement of Beth Shammai refers only to carrying out, but not to handling it? Nay, is then handling not necessary in carrying out?

MISHNA: Cattle and utensils may be brought as far only as their owners may go, and when a person commits his cattle to his son or shepherd, they may not be brought or driven farther than the owner may go. Utensils that are appropriated to the exclusive use of one among brothers living together in the same house may be brought as far as that brother may go; but if they are not thus exclusively appropriated to one only, they may be brought to the places where all may go.

A utensil that had been borrowed since the eve of the festival may be carried as far as the borrower may go; but if on the festival, as far as the lender may go. And when one woman has borrowed of another spice, water, or salt, to make dough, they may be carried as far as both may go. R. Jehudah excepts water, because its substance does not remain visible.

GEMARA: Our Mishna seems to be not in accordance with R. Dosa of the following Boraitha: R. Dosa, according to others Abba Saul, said: Whoso had bought an animal from his neighbor on the eve of a festival, although he did not receive it until the festival, the animal may be driven as far as the buyer may go. The same is the case with him who gives an animal to the shepherd. If the arrangement was made before the festival, but he delivered it on it, it must be considered as the shepherd's? Nay, the Mishna can be explained also in accordance with R. Dosa, and it presents no difficulty. Our Mishna refers to a case where there are two shepherds in the town (when it was not known to which of them he would give); therefore it is considered as the owner's. But R. Dosa speaks of a case where there is but one shepherd. This explanation seems to be right, because our Mishna teaches, "to his son or shepherd." And as there may be more than one son, so is it about shepherds.

Said Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: The Halakha prevails according to R. Dosa.

The rabbis taught: If two men had borrowed one garment, one should go in it to the House of Prayer in the morning, the other to the Dancing-house in the evening. Thus one will make an Erub to the north and the other to the south. Whoso has made an Erub to the north may go in this garment only as far as he who has made an Erub to the south may go in it to the north; and vice versa. But if either has made an Erub at his legal limit, so that by giving the right to move two thousand ells more in one direction, he loses the right to walk in the opposite direction even one step, then the garment belonging to both may not be moved from the town by either.

It was taught: If two men bought a barrel and an animal in partnership on the eve of a festival, the barrel may be moved by either to places where he goes; but the animal is not allowed to be driven except to places where both are allowed to go. So is the decree of Rabh. But according to Samuel, the case is the same with the barrel as with the animal. (Let us see:) What is the reason of Rabh's theory? If Rabh holds the theory of premeditated choice, then why shall the animal not be allowed? And if he does not, why shall the barrel be allowed? We may say that in reality he holds this theory (and therefore the barrel is allowed); but the animal is different, because it was alive at the twilight before the festival, and the blood changing its place from one member to the other on the festival, neither half can be chosen by either man (and as the partners have to go in different directions, neither may move the animal). Said p. Kahana and R. Ashi to Rabh: Even according to your theory, if the animal would be slaughtered, both partners would be allowed to eat of it, although the blood was circulating from one half designated for one man to the other half of the other man. Consequently the circulation of the blood is not feared in case of the law of Muktzah. Why, then, shall it affect the law of legal limit? Rabh was silent. What is in reality the law? R. Hoshia said: There is the theory of choice, and R. Johanan says: There is not. Mar Zutra lectured that the Halakha prevails according to R. Hoshia.

Samuel said: An ox from the dealer may be moved by every buyer to the places where he goes; but an ox belonging to the herdsman may be driven only where the people of the town have a right to go.

"A utensil borrowed since the eve of," etc. Is not this self-evident? The case is, when one actually received it on the festival, we would assume that as at twilight it was yet in the lender's house, it should not yet be considered as the borrower's, he comes to teach us that the arrangement suffices to make it considered as the borrower's. And this is in support of R. Johanan's decree, who said: One who had arranged to borrow a utensil from his neighbor on the eve, and took it on the festival, is considered as the borrower's.

"But if on the festival," etc. Is this not self-evident? The case is, when it was the custom of this man to borrow of that man often, and we would assume that the lender had the intention to give it to him from the eve, and therefore it should be regarded as the borrower's, he comes to teach us this is not the case; because it may happen that meanwhile another man may come and borrow it.

"And when a woman borrowed," etc. When R. Abba intended to go to Palestine, he prayed that it should be the will of the Lord he should say a thing which should be accepted (by those sages). When he arrived there, he found R. Johanan, R. Hanina bar Papi, and R. Zera; according to others, R. Abahu, R. Simeon b. Pazzi, and R. Itz'hak of Naphha, who were sitting interpreting our Mishna, saying: Why, let the water and the salt be ignored in the dough? Said R. Abba to them: Would it be right, when one threw in one Kab of wheat into ten Kabs of his neighbor's, shall the owner of the nine Kabs take the one Kab as his own and enjoy it? (The same shall be the case here. Because water and salt are of little value, shall they be ignored?) They were laughing at him. Said R. Abahu to them: Why do you laugh? Have I taken your garments? They laughed again. In reality. what is the reason of the Mishna's teaching? Said Abayi: That is a precautionary measure, lest they will make the whole dough in partnership. Rabha said: The reason is because spices give a flavor, and everything that gives a flavor cannot be ignored. R. Ashi said: The reason is, this prohibition is only temporary, and anything temporarily prohibited cannot be ignored, even when it is among a thousand.

"R. Jehudah excepts water." Did R. Jehudah except water, and not salt? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said that water and salt both are ignored, either in dough or in a pot? It presents no difficulty: Our Mishna speaks of Astrakhan salt, which is coarse, and must not be ignored, while the Boraitha means salt of Sodom, which is fine and is ignored. But we found another Boraitha, which says that according to R. Jehudah water and salt are ignored only in dough, but not in a pot, because of its wetness (and it imparts a taste to every part). It presents no difficulty: One Boraitha applies to a pot where something thick is cooked, while the other means a pot of soup.

MISHNA: Burning coals may be carried as far as the owners may go, but a flame may be carried everywhere. If a coal of consecrated fire has been applied to profane use, the sin of desecration has been committed; but though no profane use must be made of a flame of sacred fire, yet a person who applies it thus has not incurred the penalty, and thus, if anybody carries (on Sabbath) a burning coal into a public place, he is guilty, but does not incur the penalty for a flame. The water of a well belonging to an individual may be carried as far as that man may go; but if it belongs to a town, as far as the inhabitants thereof may go. The water of a well made for the use of travellers (such as those) who come from Babylon, may be carried as far as he who draws it may go.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Five things have been taught about the burning coals: They may be carried as far as the owners may go; but a flame, everywhere. The sin of desecration applies only to a coal, but not to a flame; it must not, however, be used. A coal of idolatry is prohibited to be used, but the flame is permitted. Whoso carries a coal into public ground on Sabbath is culpable, and a flame is innocent; and whoso has made a vow not to receive any benefit from his neighbor must not use his coal, but may use his flame. Why may a consecrated flame not be used, but a flame of idolatry may be? In regard to idolatry, which is repulsive, and men avoid it in any event, no precautionary measure was taken; but to a consecrated thing which is not so, it was taken.

"A well belonging to an individual," etc. Rabha suggested the following contradiction before R. Na'hman: Our Mishna teaches that the water of an individual may be carried only as far as he may go, and in another Boraitha we have learned: Running rivers and springing wells are to be considered as the feet of every man (Sabbath, p. 261). Said Rabba: The Mishna refers to a well where water is not springing, but collected, and the same was taught in the name of Samuel by R. Hyya bar Abbin.

"Babylonian travellers": as the feet of him who draws it. It was taught: If one draw it and give it to another man, R. Na'hman said it may be considered as the feet of him for whom it is drawn; but R. Shesheth says, as his who draws. In what point do they differ? One holds that the well may be considered as ownerless (and if the water was drawn for any one he becomes the owner), and the other holds that they are partners.

MISHNA: If one has fruit in another town of which the inhabitants only made an Erub (but not the owner), they must not bring his fruit to him; but if he has made the Erub, the fruit may be carried to any place he is allowed to go.

When one has invited guests, they must not carry home with them anything from the table, unless he had granted it to them the day before the festival.

GEMARA: It was taught: If one has deposited fruit at his neighbor's house, Rabh said the fruit is to be considered the property of the keeper; but Samuel said it is still regarded as the property of the depositor. An objection was made, based upon our Mishna: If he made also an Erub, the fruit may be brought to him. Now if, according to Rabh, it is considered the property of the keeper, what is the use of his making an Erub? Said R. Huna: The disciples of Rabh explain our Mishna that it refers to a case when they assigned a corner for his fruit (so that it is as if under his supervision). Come and hear (another objection): "They must not carry home," etc., "unless he had granted it," etc. Now, if it is considered the keeper's, what is the use of granting on the day before? The answer is, that granting is equal to assigning a separate place, as explained above, and if you wish it can be said that the case when granting is different.

R. Hana bar Hanilai suspended meat on the bar of the door, and went away. After when he wished to use it he came before R. Huna and asked him whether he can use it or not (because the meat was brought to him by a butcher out of town, and he feared perhaps he brought it from over the legal limit), and R. Huna answered: If yourself have suspended it, you may use it, but if the butcher suspended it, you may not.

MISHNA: One must not give drink to, or slaughter, animals living wild, but one may do it to domestic animals. And what are called domestic animals? When they are at night in the town or the suburbs; and those which are in the open field are called wild.

GEMARA: To what purpose are both drinking and slaughtering stated? It is a thing by the way: it comes to teach us that before slaughtering it is good the animal shall drink, because it is then easier to take off the skin.

The rabbis taught: Wild beasts are called those which depart about the time of Passover, and feed in the marshes in the summer, and return in the fall; and domestic are called those which go out every day beyond the legal limit, but return every night, Rabbi, however, said: Both kinds mentioned are called domestic; but which are called wild beasts? Those that never come to inhabited places. Does, then, Rabbi hold the theory of Muktzah (prohibiting to slaughter even a wild beast)? Did not his son, R. Simeon, ask him: Dates which become not ripe on the tree, but are put in boxes of palm-branches and remain there till they ripen, what is the law about eating them on Sabbath according to R. Simeon? And he answered: The theory of Muktzah, according to R. Simeon, does not exist at all? (And as we know that Rabbi's opinion was according to R. Simeon, consequently he does not hold the theory of Muktzah at all?) Rabbi said to the sages as follows: According to my opinion, no theory of Muktzah exists. But even in your opinion, would you not own to me that the animals which return in the fall must be called domestic? And the sages answered: No; in our opinion they are still called wild beasts.

END OF TRACT BETZAH (YOM TOB).