Jerusalem Avodah Zarah

MISHNAH: Within three days before Gentile holidays one is forbidden to trade with them, to lend them and to borrow from them, to give them loans and to ask them for loans, to pay debts to them and to accept payment from them1It is forbidden to buy from an idolator or repay one’s debt because this provides him with money for his idolatrous celebration. It is forbidden to sell to him because he will buy things for his celebration. One may not lend him vessels or animals for he will use them for his celebration. One may not borrow from him because this will make him feel important.. Rebbi Jehudah says, one may accept payment from them because this hurts him. They told him, even though it hurts him now he will enjoy it later2The feeling that he got rid of his debts will make his idolatrous celebration more happy.. Rebbi Ismael says, three days before and three days afterwards are forbidden but the Sages say, before their holidays it is forbidden, after their holidays it is permitted. HALAKHAH: “Within three days before Gentile holidays,” etc. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba understood all from here: Bring your sacrifices in the morning, on the third day your tithes3Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it were so, even in the diasporas. But it was stated4Babli 7b, slightly differently Tosephta 1:1., Nahum the Mede said, in the diasporas one day is forbidden. What about this? There, they checked and found that they supplied their needs in one day and forbade them one day. But here5In Palestine. The expression גָּלִיּוֹת usually means Babylonia; the plural does not imply that any of these restrictions were followed in Egypt or other parts of the Roman Empire. they checked and found that they cover their needs in three days and forbade them three days. How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc6Since for him the Mishnah has no biblical basis; the cessation of commerce with idolators either is rabbinic or an old popular custom. The entire sermon is reproduced in Yalqut Šim`oni Prophets§542.? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal7Is. 7:6. The tradition that Ṭabeal is a place rather than a personal name was accepted by the Medieval commentators of Prophets. According to Rashi the name is coded; one has to replace letter nby n+/-11; then טבאל becomes רַמְלֵא, a city founded after the Arab conquest.. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me81S. 2:28.. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people91K. 12:31; quoted in the Babli, Qiddušin75b, in the name of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning10Ex. 23:28.; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning3Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day11Lev. 19:6.; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes3Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter10Ex. 23:28.; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter3Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it12Deut. 23:22., but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them3,Am. 4:4, speaking of the sinful service of the Golden Calf of Beth El.13But it is not necessary to fulfill one’s pledge. The reason of the Northern Kingdom’s apostasy is traced to the cost and onerous rules of Torah practice.. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand14Hos. 4:5.. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk15He claimed that his mental faculties were slightly impaired.. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping.16Hos. 4:6. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration16Hos. 4:6.. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges17Hos.4:7. All of Talmudic literature assumes that the legal system imagined for late Hasmonean rule was that of the Davidic kingdom.. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found18Deut. 21:1. This sermon derives הֶחֱלוּ in Hos. 4:5 not from חלה “to be sick” but from חלל “to be perforated”.. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat14,Hos. 4:5.19Deriving הֶחֱלוּ in Hos. 4:5 from חול “to be profane”.; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan201K. 12:29.. The haughtiness of Jeroboam damned him absolutely21Jeroboam is the only person of those mentioned in Mishnah Sanhedrin11:2 as having no part in the Future World who is not rehabilitated in the Yerushalmi Halakhah. The following argument is reproduced in Babli Sanhedrin101b.. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, Jeroboam became king at the end of a Sabbatical year. This refers to what is written22Deut. 31:11., at the end of seven years, at the time of the Sabbatical year, on the festival of Tabernacles, when all of Israel comes to appear before the Eternal, your God, at the place which He shall choose, you shall read this Torah in the presence of all of Israel to their ears. He said, if I am asked to read23By tradition, on this occasion it is the king who has to read selected portions (Mishnah Sotah6:7). It is presumed that the same was true for the First Temple. There is no provision that two kings could read alternate portions, or if they did, the local king certainly would have precedence. The assertion of the book of Kings that there was a perpetual state of war between the Northern and the Southern kingdoms in the time of Jeroboam (1K. 15:6) is interpreted as a war of words conducted in the House of Study.Another tradition (mentioned frequently but not undisputed) holds that nobody is allowed to sit in the Temple but a Davidic king (Pesaḥim5:10, Yoma3:2, Soṭah7:7; Babli Sanhedrin101b, Soṭah40a,41a, Yoma25a, Qiddušin78a, Tamid27a). If Yeroboam would have to stand while Rehabeam was sitting, an impossible situation would be created., I have to stand. They will say, the local king has precedence. But if I am reading as second, it is a shame for me. If I do not read, it is a disgrace for me. And if I let them go24Letting the people go to Jerusalem while he remains at Sichem would emphasize the legitimacy of Rehabeam’s rule., they will ascend and desert me. They will go to Rehabeam, Solomon’s son. This is what is written251K. 12:26.: If this people would go up to sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem will this people’s heart return to their master, to Rehabeam. What did he do? He made two golden calves and wrote on their hearts, “they will kill you.” He said, any king who will succeed me will look at them26The king would see the words engraved on the calves and understand that their purpose was to prevent people from observing the assembly in Jerusalem which would undermine his rule.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, companions of ingenious conjurations27Ps. 58:6.. Anybody who joined with him he will make a coconspirator28Correctly reading the first חבר in the verse from the root meaning “to connect” but the second from the homonym meaning “to conjure, to practice sorcery.” Since all kings of Israel adopted his institution of official worship at Bethel as long as that place existed, they became his co-conspirators.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, a slaughtering place deepened by seducers29Hos. 5:2., for he deepened in crime. He said, anybody, I shall kill anybody who makes this public30The reason for the worship of the calves was never made public. Therefore, the sin was the king’s only.. Rebbi Abin bar Cahana said, we find that Jeroboam also invented Sabbaths and holidays. That is what is written311K. 12:32–33.: Jeroboam made the holiday in the eighth month, on the fifteenth of the month, like the holiday in Jehudah, and went on the altar; so did he at Bethel to sacrifice … in the month which he invented. “In addition to” is written32The Qere is מִלִּיבּוּ “by his invention”; the Ketib is מִלְּבַד “in addition” (or “except”). This is read to mean that in addition to the holiday month which he invented, he invented something else. By comparing the expression used in Lev. 23:38, the “else” is found to be the Sabbath, justifying R. Abin bar Cahana’s statement. (Cf. Num. r. 21:23.), as you say, in addition to the Sabbaths of the Eternal. It was stated33Babli 6b. While trade is forbidden, the proceeds of an illegal trade are not.: If one transgressed and traded with him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yose, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on his holiday34Disputed by the Babli 6b, Tosephta 1:9.. It was stated so:35Quoted in Tosaphot 2a, s.v. אסור. When was this said? About a Gentile whom he does not know. But with a Gentile of his acquaintance it is permitted since he is flattering him. It was stated: If one enters a town and finds them celebrating, he celebrates with them because he only is flattering them. A ducenarius36Latin, “referring to 200”. If this describes an administrator, the reference is to an official such a prefect, procurator, receiving a salary of 200 sestertia(2’000 gold denarii), if a soldier, a commander of 200 men. honored Rebbi Jehudah the Prince37The grandson of Rebbi. with a plate full of denarii. He took one of them and sent the remainder to him. He asked Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, he shall bring the value to the Dead Sea38“Bringing something to the Dead Sea” means destroying it, since the Dead Sea corrodes and destroys all metal thrown into it. Babli 6b.. But was he not an acquaintance and it was in the past? Rebbi Abbahu said, did not Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi asked me, may one go to a fair39This refers only to fairs which are in honor of some divinity. There is no limit to visits to government-organized fairs (Tosephta 1:7)., and I forbade it to him, although it was stated40Tosephta 1:8; Babli 13a.: “one goes to fairs and buys there male and female slaves.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves41Circumcised slaves who were property of another Jew. This cannot refer to Jews sold as slaves since it is very meritorious to redeem Jews from slavery and does not need special permission. but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina42The Divine Presence. Since the slave becomes a semi-Jew, in the words of the Babli (13b) buying Gentile slaves “diminishes the number of idolators in the world.”. What about this? Rabban Gamliel was a minor personality and Rebbi Abbahu desired to confine him43R. Abbahu did not want to abrogate the general permission for a meritorious intent to visit fairs dedicated to pagan divinities; he only thought that a public personality who probably would be unable to define the limits between per- mitted and forbidden intent should not give a bad example to the people.. But Rebbi Judan the Prince was an important person and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish wanted to limit the matter44While trade is permitted, accepting gifts distributed by a pagan on his holiday essentially is forbidden even though the gift should be accepted to improve intercommunal peace.. One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him45Babli 6b.. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document46Babli Bava qamma102a.. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt47Quoted in Tosaphot 2a, s.v. ולפרוע.. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. There, we have stated48Mishnah Mo`ed qaṭan1:5 (in the Mishnah editions, 1:7.) Babli Mo`ed qaṭan9b.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, a woman should not apply lime because it disfigures her49On the semi-holidays which are the intermediate days of the Passover and Tabernacles holidays, one should not do what one can do before the holiday. Therefore one cannot get a haircut on the holidays and men cannot trim their beards. Rebbi Jehudah holds that a woman cannot get a beauty treatment in the form of a face mask of lime which will remove all facial hair and will make her cheeks more red by increased blood circulation. Since his name is attached to this prohibition while the others are stated anonymously it follows that the majority of the Sages hold that a woman can get such a treatment at any time.It would seem that one should write נִיבּוּל as pi`el but since the Babli consistently has ניוול they must have heard the Galileans pronounce the word with a soft ב (which does not exclude that Galilean בּ also was pronounced v; cf. Berakhot2:4 Note 167.).” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden50Even for the Sages. While it is forbidden to marry on a holiday since the joy of holidays should not be mixed with the joy of marriage, a girl certainly can get engaged to be married on a holiday. The beauty treatment described was applied mainly to single girls to make them more marriageable. A treatment which terminates only after the holiday is a misuse of holiday time.. But the other says, they disagreed about lime which she removes after the holiday. But lime which she removes during the holiday is permitted. We did not know who said what. From what R. Ḥanina, Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jehudah is consistent. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said there, temporary disfiguration is disfiguration, so he says here51In our Mishnah where he holds that the temporary pain the Gentile feels when repaying his debt is sufficient to wave the prohibition of commerce., temporary pain is pain. This implies that they disagreed about lime which she removed on the holiday, but lime which she removes after the holiday is forbidden52This therefore is not only R. Ḥanina’s opinion but stated practice.. 53A similar text in Tosephta 1:3. Jewish craftsmen working for a Gentile at that time, in his house it is forbidden, in their houses permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, when has this been said? When it was cut from the ground, but as long as it is standing on the ground it is forbidden54The Jewish agricultural worker cannot harvest for the Gentile’s celebration of his holiday. The Tosephta text reads differently: The Jewish worker cannot work if he is paid by the day but the craftsman who is paid as contractor can do anything he wants in his own house. In a similar statement (Šabbat1, 4a l. 58) R. Simeon ben Eleazar holds that a Gentile contractor can work on a Jew’s contract in his house on the Sabbath, but not in the Jew’s house nor if he is paid for his time on the Sabbath.. In another town in any case it is permitted. What means “in any case it is permitted”? Whether cut or standing, whether hired or contracting. Rebbi La said, Whether cut or standing, but only in contracting. Rebbi Simeon ben Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, concerning Sabbath54The Jewish agricultural worker cannot harvest for the Gentile’s celebration of his holiday. The Tosephta text reads differently: The Jewish worker cannot work if he is paid by the day but the craftsman who is paid as contractor can do anything he wants in his own house. In a similar statement (Šabbat1, 4a l. 58) R. Simeon ben Eleazar holds that a Gentile contractor can work on a Jew’s contract in his house on the Sabbath, but not in the Jew’s house nor if he is paid for his time on the Sabbath., mourning55There is no statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar in the relevant Chapters of Yerushalmi Mo`ed qaṭan. According to Nachmanides (Milḥamot Hashem ad Alfasi Mo`ed qaṭan§1232) it refers to the baraita in the Babli Mo`ed qaṭan26b where R. Simeon ben Eleazar forbids invisible mending of garments torn at the news of the death of a close relative., and pagan worship practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. The colleagues say, the reason of Rebbi Ismael is because of the holiday’s son56The day after the holiday which in Jewish custom is a day where mourning and fasting are forbidden. It is presumed that Gentiles follow a similar custom.. Rebbi Abba said, because he knows that it is forbidden to you to trade with him, he reduces the enjoyment of his holiday57This assumes that Jews are dominant in trade. If the Gentile cannot replenish his stock after the holiday, he will use it sparingly and thereby refrain from any exuberant celebration.. What is the difference between them? To sell them things which do not keep. In the opinion of the colleagues it is forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba it is allowed58In the opinion of the colleagues all commerce is forbidden on the day following a holiday. In the opinion of R. Abba (in the Babli 6b R. Simeon ben Laqish supported by a baraita) one may sell perishable items on that day since the Gentile could not have bought them before and their availability will not influence the Gentile’s behavior on his holiday.. Rebbi Yudan said, a verse supports what the colleagues said. On the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month the sons of Israel assembled in fasting, and crying, and in sackcloth, and dirt on them59Neh. 9:1. Words not appearing in MT are underlined.. Why does it not say, on the twenty-third? Because of the holiday’s son. If you want to say because that was on a Sabbath, you cannot do this, because then the Great Fast would have been on a Sunday60In the Seventh month, the first is New Year’s Day, the tenth is the Day of Atonement, and days 15–22 are Tabernacles. Nehemiah refrained from calling a fast day on the day after the holiday; this dates the observance of the “holiday’s son” at least to Nehemiah, unless it was impossible to call a fast day because the 23rd was a Sabbath. But then the 15th and the 1st would have been Fridays and the day of Atonement a Sunday. Since it is assumed that Nehemiah followed rabbinic rules one also assumes that as head of the rabbinic establishment of his time he would have manipulated the calendar to avoid this situation when one could not cook for a big meal before the fast (as the rabbinic calendar also is manipulated to avoid the fast on a Friday when one could not cook for breaking the fast.) (A similar argument is rejected by Tosafot in Roš Haššanah19b s. v. מימות; one must assume that the author was ignorant of this paragraph in the Yerushalmi.). And what about this? Does not Rebbi Onias make light of him who would move it from its place61An Amora of the first generation; in Halakhah 3:1 he is called R. Ḥanina from Hauran. He was a member of the committee of the Academy of Tiberias which fixed the calendar after Rebbi’s death and opposed all manipulations not justified by astronomical facts.? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Madia said, I computed it and it was not on a Sabbath.

MISHNAH: The following are the holidays of the Gentiles: Calendae62The first day of the month; used here only for the first day of the year, the first of January., Saturnalia63The year-end licentious festivities in Rome., and Cratesis64Greek κράτησις, “might, power, accession to Empire”. Observed on the first of August, the day of capture of Alexandria by Augustus., and the king’s birthday65This is the Yerushalmi explanation. In the Babli, the day of accession., and birthday66Personal holidays of private persons., and the day of death67Of ancestors., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, any death for which there is burning68Burning the personal belongings of the deceased. is idolatrous; if there is no burning it is not idolatrous. HALAKHAH: “The following are the holidays of the Gentiles,” etc. 69A reformulated parallel is in Berakhot8:7, Notes 157–160. Rav said ‘edehen and Samuel said `edehen. He who said ‘edehen, they are their witnesses70Is.44:9.. He who said `edehen, for the day of their misfortune is near71Deut. 32:35.. Rav said me`abberim, and Samuel said me‘abberin72The technical term for intercalation in the calendar, adding a month.. He who said me`abberin, one adds a limb to it. He who said me‘abberin, like a pregnant woman. Rav said ye`utu, and Samuel said, ye‘utu73The condition for a benediction over fire at the end of the Sabbath is that one have use of it.. He who said ye`utu, but with this we shall be agreeable to you74Gen. 34:15.. He who said ye‘utu, to know, to inform the weary of wisdom75Is. 50:4.. 76Babli 8a. Rav said, Adam, the first man, instituted Calendas. When he saw that the night was getting longer, he said, woe to me, maybe this is what is written for, he shall smite your head, you will sneak to his heel77Gen.3:15., maybe it will come to bite me. I said, but darkness will smite me78Ps.139.11. Psalm 139, ascribed in the book of Psalms to David, is in aggadic tradition at least partially ascribed to Adam (cf. Midrash Tehillim, Ps. 139, the suthor’s The Scholar’s Haggadah p. 220).. When he saw that days were getting longer, he said calendas, καλόνdies79“A beautiful day,” mixed Greek (καλόν “beautiful”, accusative) and Latin (dies“day”, nominative) perhaps to indicate the popular language of the unlettered.. This follows him who said that the world was created in Tishre80This is the opinion of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua holds that the world was created on the 15th of Nisan. Cf. Babli Roš Haššanah27a and the author’s Seder Olam(Northvale NJ 1998) pp. 47–48 (Note 3).. But following him who said that the world was created in Nisan, he would have known. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, who thinks that the world was created in Tishre? Rav! As we have stated in the composition for shofar blowing from the House of Rav81Rav’s composition for the extended musaf prayer on New Year’s Day. The sentence is found in the middle section.: “This is the day of the beginning of Your works, a remembrance of the first day.” This implies that the world was created on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Joḥanan does not say so, but the empire of Egypt and the empire of Rome were fighting with one another. They said, how long are we killing one another in this war82Greek πόλεμος.? Let us institute the rule that the empire should be preeminent which will tell its army commander, fall on your sword, and he will obey. The Egyptian did not obey. In Rome there was an old man by the name of Januarius who had twelve sons. They told him, if you obey us we shall make your sons dukes83Latin dux, pl. duces., eparchoi84Greek ἔπαρχος “governor, prefect.”, and generals85Greek στρατηλάτης.. He listened to them. Therefore, it is called Calendae Januarii. The next day they mourn him, a black day86Greek μέλαινα ἡμέρα, translation of Latin dies ater, a black (unlucky) day. Dies postridiani, following calendae, ides, or nonae, were considered inauspicious.. Rebbi Yudan from Antodra87Or Antondra, Antorda; cf. Berakhot4:1 Note 72. said, if one sows lentils87aA symbol of mourning, Gen. rabba63(19). on that day, they will not succeed. Rav said, Calendae are forbidden for everybody88In the Babli, 8a, the opinions attributed here to the Babylonian Rav are quoted in the name of the Galilean R. Joshua ben Levi.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden only for those worshipping on them. Saturnalia are forbidden for everybody89This also is opinion of Rav/R. Joshua ben Levi.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both Calendae and Saturnalia are forbidden only for those worshipping on them. The colleagues asked: are wives of worshippers like worshippers? Rebbi Abbahu asked: is the parade90This seems to have been a military parade which may have involved the display of the legion’s eagles, considered an idolatrous practice. The participation of Samaritans may have removed the pagan aspect. of Caesarea like worship, since it is full of Samaritans? The parade of Duqim90aAn unidentified place. is questionable. Rebbi Ze‘ira sent Rebbi Bevai that he should buy him a small web from the Saturnalia of Bet-Shean. He came to Rebbi Yose91One has to read Yasa (Assi), the teacher of R. Ze‘ira, not Yose, his student’s student.. He thought that he would instruct him following Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it. But he instructed him following Rebbi Joḥanan that it was forbidden92Clearly, one has to switch “permitted” and “forbidden” since the preceding (and Note 88) shows that R. Joshua ben Levi forbade what R. Joḥanan allowed.. Rav said, Calends are eight days before the solstice, Saturnalia eight days after the solstice93Here “before” and “after” have to be switched; the statement is correct in the Babli, 8a. The Calends of January are 9 to 10 days after the winter solstice.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, prwqṭw is the head of the turning point94The dictionaries follow Musaphia in reading tropic for procto, meaning that when the sun is standing over the tropic this is the time of the solstice. It is difficult to accept a double metathesis, and the sun being over one of the tropics is not a beginning of the solstice; it is the solstice. Also תְּקוּפָה “turning point” denotes any one of the four cardinal points of the ecliptic, both solstices and both equinoxes. S. Krauss is correct in rejecting Musaphia’s explanation but his own, by a non-existing Greek word, is no better. Cf. Latin procitat“it drew near”, said e. g. of the orbits of two stars. The earth is nearest to the sun at the summer solstice (E. G.). One would vocalize פְּרוֹקִטוֹ.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: There are three times95Where one has to observe the Mishnah’s restrictions on commerce with Gentiles. in Babylonia, three times in Media. Three times in Babylonia, מהורי וכנוני וכוונתה96These days have not been identified except for מהירקנה which is mehragan, Arabic مهرجان, a fall festival. In Responsen der Geonim(Harkavy), Berlin 1887, No. 46 (p. 22) the Gaon describes this as the solstices, still celebrated as a holiday in his time. Also in מהורי one recognizes the root mehr“Mithra”, the sun-god. In כנוני one recognizes kanun, the Accadic and Syriac name of the Month of Ṭevet(or Kislev and Ṭevet) which leads one also to identify the day as connected to the winter solstice. In the Babli (11b) the readings are for Persian festivals מוטרדי וטוריסקי מוהרנקי ומוהרין, ms. readings מוטירדי וטירײסקי מוהרסנקי ומוהרין, מוטרדי ומורײסקי מוהרקני ומוחרנן, for the Babylonians מוהרנקי ואקניתי׳ בחנוני ועשר באדר, מוהרנקי ואקניתיה ,ואקנײת׳ במני ואסר באדר בחנוני ועשרים באדר. In the ms. readings the first series is from the Munich ms. (Diqduqe Soferim), the second from the NY ms. published by Shraga Abramson (New York 1957). The readings do not help much but it is clear that on base of the next sentence in the Yerushalmi in the list of Babylonian festivals one must read with the NY ms. “20 Adar” as Median New Year’s Day. (In his Notes, p. 150a, Abramson incorrectly reads “10 Adar” with the other Babli sources.). Three in Media, 96These days have not been identified except for מהירקנה which is mehragan, Arabic مهرجان, a fall festival. In Responsen der Geonim(Harkavy), Berlin 1887, No. 46 (p. 22) the Gaon describes this as the solstices, still celebrated as a holiday in his time. Also in מהורי one recognizes the root mehr“Mithra”, the sun-god. In כנוני one recognizes kanun, the Accadic and Syriac name of the Month of Ṭevet(or Kislev and Ṭevet) which leads one also to identify the day as connected to the winter solstice. In the Babli (11b) the readings are for Persian festivals מוטרדי וטוריסקי מוהרנקי ומוהרין, ms. readings מוטירדי וטירײסקי מוהרסנקי ומוהרין, מוטרדי ומורײסקי מוהרקני ומוחרנן, for the Babylonians מוהרנקי ואקניתי׳ בחנוני ועשר באדר, מוהרנקי ואקניתיה ,ואקנײת׳ במני ואסר באדר בחנוני ועשרים באדר. In the ms. readings the first series is from the Munich ms. (Diqduqe Soferim), the second from the NY ms. published by Shraga Abramson (New York 1957). The readings do not help much but it is clear that on base of the next sentence in the Yerushalmi in the list of Babylonian festivals one must read with the NY ms. “20 Adar” as Median New Year’s Day. (In his Notes, p. 150a, Abramson incorrectly reads “10 Adar” with the other Babli sources.)נוסרדי ותירײסקי ומהירקנה. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rab Naḥman bar Jacob: New Year’s Day97Persian نوروز. “Adar” here has the meaning of “March” as in the Syrian Christian calendar. Today’s Persian New Year is what is characterized here as Median. is on the second of March in Persia, on the 20th of March in Media. “Saturnalia,” “hidden hatred; hating, taking revenge, preserving [hatred].98A proposed Hebrew etymology of “Saturnalia.”” This is what you say, Esau hated Jacob99Gen. 27:41.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, in Rome they call it “senate of Esau100In Gen. rabba66(7) there is a different, more intelligible version: Esau hated Jacob; R. Eleazar ben R. Yose said, he was his steward (סַנְטֻרוי) but became hating, taking revenge, preserving [hatred]; for this one calls the Senators (סֶנָטֹרוי) of Rome. For סנטר saltuarius cf. Bava mesi‘a5:7 Note 138..” “Cratesis.” The day when Rome took hold of the Empire. Was this not stated already101In the second interpretation of Calendae.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for the second time102When Augustus became Emperor to end the civil wars.. Rebbi Levi said, on the day when Solomon married the daughter of Pharao Necho, the king of Egypt, Michael descended and put a stick into the Sea which attracted debris and formed a forest; that is the great fortification in Rome. On the day when Jeroboam put up two golden calves, Remus and Romulus built two sheds in Rome. On the day Eliahu disappeared a king was installed at Rome; a king, there is no king appointed in Edom1031K. 22:48. The verse is quoted in incomplete form; in the biblical text נִצָּב is not a verb but a noun: There was no king in Edom; a governor was king. A shortened version is found in the Babli, Sanhedrin21b.. “The king’s birthday.” It was on the third day, Pharao’s birthday104Gen. 40:20.. “Birthday, and the day of death.” The preceding was for the public, from here on private. But it is written104aJer.34:5. Since God promises Sedekia that one will burn things at his funeral, the practice cannot be prohibited.: You shall die in peace, and what was burned for your earlier forefathers … So is the Mishnah: “Any death where there is smoke and burning105One burns not only the deceased’s utensils but adds some fuel which creates thick smoke. This is superstitious or idolatrous. The Babli, 11a, accepts burning as practice only for kings and Patriarchs, not for commoners. is idolatrous; if there is not smoke and burning it is not idolatrous.

MISHNAH: The day of the first shaving of his beard and his locks105aThe religious shaving of the first beard is known from Roman sources (Petronius, Satyricon §29-8, where a golden box with the shavings of the master’s first beard stands in a niche with the lares and a statue of Venus.) According to Ravad [Commentary to Sifra Ahare Pereq 13(9)] this is the sacrifice of locks that one grows for a year or two and then cuts as a religious rite., the day he arrived from a trip at sea106Which always involved mortal danger., the day he was freed from jail, or a Gentile wedding feast for his son, are forbidden only on the day itself and for this man. HALAKHAH: “The day of the first shaving of his beard,” etc. What means “only on the day itself”; maybe the same day every year? Did we not state, his haircut and his son’s haircut is107The singular “it is forbidden” implies that this is a double festivity on the same day. Since it is quite impossible that a man and his son should shave their beards for the first time on the same day, it seems that the baraita implies that he celebrates the anniversary of his first shave every year and then shaves his son on that same date. The answer is that nothing in the baraita implies that one speaks of the first shaving of the beard; it could well be that the father lets his hair grow three years from the date of birth of his son and then cuts his and his son's hair on the same day in one pagan rite. forbidden? Explain it that they had a haircut together. Did we not state, his wedding feast and his son’s wedding feast are forbidden108A son and his widowed father may well marry on the same day.? Explain it that they together had a haircut and married women. Did we not state, his birth and his son’s birth is forbidden? Could you say that they were born together? Explain it that he did not do it on his day, but after the son was born he did it with him109Here it seems more reasonable to assume that a father celebrates his birthday every year and his son has the same birthday. But as with the other statements, it is not necessarily so. It either may be that the baraita does not refer to the birthdays of the persons but to birth of children to both of them; nor does it imply that the birthdates are identical; only the celebrations are. The problem is undecided; for practical purposes only the day itself is forbidden, not its date every following year.. 110A thoroughly corrupt paragraph; partially but defectively copied from Demay4:6, Notes 73–74. The basic reference is Tosephta Baba qamma7:8 which declares creating a false impression to obtain goodwill as “stealing minds” and forbidden. The example in the Tosephta reads: “he should not open for him amphoras sold to a grocer,” i. e., one should not give the guest the impression that one goes to great expense for him when in fact the amphora had to be opened anyhow to fulfill an existing sales contract. The text here does not make much sense. The next sentence is also in Demay(Babli Ḥulin94a) and makes perfect sense. He should not send him amphoras sold to the grocer because that is like claiming an unnecessary claim. One should not invite another knowing that he will not accept. He should not offer many gifts of closeness knowing that he does not want [them]. What is “of closeness”? He trusts another corner111In Demay: “He knows that the other person expects that he would exert himself for him.”. And in Jerusalem he was switching his ‘ikhla from right to left112The word עִיכְלָא is otherwise unknown; cf. Demay loc. cit. Note 74. Compare Arabic عٍكال “cord (of a curtain)”.. 113Demay4:7, Notes 76–80; Tosephta Giṭtin3:13–14; Babli Giṭtin61a. It was stated: In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, if the Gentiles contribute the overseers of charity collect from them and from Jews, and provide for Gentile and Jewish poor, visit Gentile and Jewish sick, console Gentile and Jewish mourners, and bury Gentile and Jewish dead. Also one takes in vessels from Gentiles and Jews for the sake of peaceful coexistence. The weavers asked Rebbi Immi, what about a Gentile wedding feast? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “for the sake of peaceful coexistence.” Rebbi Abba told him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that a Gentile wedding feast is forbidden? Rebbi Immi said, if it had not been for Rebbi Abba we would have come to permit their pagan worship; praise be the Omnipresent Who distanced us from them.

MISHNAH: Outside a town with pagan worship it is permitted114In a village or small town, if there is a pagan festival, or a fair dedicated to a pagan deity, which is celebrated by everybody there, the restrictions of trade spelled out in Mishnah 1 do apply in the town but not in its surroundings.. If the pagan worship was outside, inside is permitted. May one go there? If the road was dedicated to this place115The place where trade with the Gentiles would be forbidden. it is forbidden, but if one could go there also to another place it is permitted. If a town has pagan worship and there were stores decorated and not decorated; there was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages said that the decorated ones are forbidden, the not decorated ones are permitted116To trade there since they do not participate in the festivities.. HALAKHAH: “Outside a town with pagan worship,” etc. Therefore inside it is forbidden. Because in it there is one statue all of it should be forbidden? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, they taught this about a fair117The fair is a once yearly affair in honor of some divinity and its temple receives a fee from every transaction at the fair. Trading at the fair is directly subsidizing pagan worship. Babli 11b.. What is the difference between inside and the surroundings? Inside where it profits from the toll it is forbidden. Outside it is permitted because it does not profit from the toll, but if outside it also profits from the toll it is forbidden. But was it not stated40Tosephta 1:8; Babli 13a.: “One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves41Circumcised slaves who were property of another Jew. This cannot refer to Jews sold as slaves since it is very meritorious to redeem Jews from slavery and does not need special permission. but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of the Shekhina42The Divine Presence. Since the slave becomes a semi-Jew, in the words of the Babli (13b) buying Gentile slaves “diminishes the number of idolators in the world.”. But was it not stated118Babli 13a.: If he bought there a garment, it should be burned, an animal should be castrated, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea? One understands that a garment should be burned, coins should be brought to the Dead Sea. An animal should be castrated119The statement is unacceptable first because it contradicts the Tosephta and second because there is a biblical prohibition to castrate any animal (Lev. 22:24). The Babli 13a explains “castrating” as “making unfit for agricultural work” similar to the meaning of the root عقر “to starve an animal” in Arabic.? But was it not stated40Tosephta 1:8; Babli 13a.: One goes to fairs and buys there slaves, slave girls, and animals.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not only Jewish slaves41Circumcised slaves who were property of another Jew. This cannot refer to Jews sold as slaves since it is very meritorious to redeem Jews from slavery and does not need special permission. but even Gentiles, because he brings them under the wings of Heaven? Explain it, Israel, Israel120He bought from a Jew who was a vendor at the fair. This shows that only the strictly religious persons followed the rules on trade with Gentiles.. But was it not stated: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles the proceeds are forbidden121The Babli (Giṭtin45a) requires the communal court to force the seller to buy the slave back for up to 10 times the sale price. It is forbidden to sell a circumcised slave, who has to keep the Sabbath and eat kosher, to a Gentile. On the other hand, a slave who refuses to be circumcised and become a semi-Jew may be sold to Gentiles without penalty.. Again explain it, Israel, Israel. One buys from an Israel who goes to a fair because he is like one salvaging from their hands. On his return it is forbidden since he profits from pagan worship122Babli 33a, Tosephta 1:15.. But from Gentiles it is permitted whether they are going or coming. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry123Greek πανδοκεῖον, πανδόκιον. Since the hostelry is a place for strangers, even at the time of a fair it is exempt of the rules restricting participation of Jews. it is permitted. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: at a fair it is forbidden, in a hostelry it is permitted? Maybe Rebbi Joḥanan said this about merchandise124Greek πραγματεία.. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a hostelry, merchandise is permitted125The Babli 13a, b explains that any kind of merchandise one may buy there if no fee is paid to the organizers of the fair., said Rebbi Joḥanan126This clause is superfluous but this is not sufficient reason to delete it from the text.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one bartered an animal for an idol it becomes forbidden. Rav Ḥisda asked: If he had worshipped it he would not have made it forbidden127Animals used in pagan worship are forbidden as sacrifices (Mishnah Temurah6:1), but living things cannot become forbidden for all use. Why should barter make the living animal forbidden?. Because he bartered an animal for an idol he made it forbidden? Maybe it was said about merchandise assembled before the fair128It is forbidden to give animals (or any other article which might be used in pagan worship) specifically for the purpose of assembling merchandise for sale at the pagan fair. The proceeds would be forbidden as the money of a Jew returning from dealing at the fair.. There came Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one bartered an animal for an idol it becomes forbidden. This was said about merchandise assembled before the fair. Rebbi Abbahu said, it is forbidden to make a group visit to a fair129As stated in the following Tosephta, it is forbidden to greet a celebrant of a pagan rite in public where it increases his prestige on the day of his celebration. Since a group constitutes a public, a person meeting a Gentile of his acquaintance would automatically violate this prohibition., as we have stated130Tosephta 1:2.: “One should not greet him at a place where it gives him prestige. If he meets him on his way, he greets him gravely.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba sent to buy sandals for himself at the fair of Tyre. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, are you a buyer at fairs131The head of the Academy should not be violating rabbinic decrees; Babli 13b.? He answered him, did you never buy a loaf of bread132Greek κόλλιξ.? He said to him, there is a difference, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not forbid the necessities of life. Rebbi Simeon ben Joḥanan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq, did you not check out the nature of the fair at Tyre? He told him, yes. He gave two pounds133Cf. Ševuot6:3, Note 34. of peppers to an 134An unexplained word. The proposed etymologies by Perles (scrinarius, a document keeper), Levy (a small oven), and Kohut (Persian eskodār, a courier) are unsatisfactory.איסקרנדה. He went and found an inscription there, “I, King Diocletian, settled this fair at Tyre to the genius of my brother Heraklius135Title given by Diocletian Jovius to his co-emperor Maximian. As a government sponsored fair, it should be permitted (Tosephta 1:7); the dedication to the genie of an Emperor would not make it prohibited since no pagan temple would profit from the sales., eight days.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman asked Rebbi Ḥanina: What is the nature of the fair at Gaza? He said to him, did you ever go to Tyre and see a Jew and a Gentile sharing a pot, and he does not worry that the Gentile pour something into the pot? This is difficult. He asked him; what did he answer him? But since Rebbi Ḥanina never said something that he had not heard, for that reason when he asked him this he responded with that136Babli 11b/12a.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun came, Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They forbade only the fair at Botnah137Identified by Eusebius as the biblical town of Betonim in the territory of the tribe of Gad., as it was stated thus: There are three fairs, the fair at Gaza, the fair at Acco, the fair at Botnah. The clearest of them138As unquestionably pagan, organized for the benefit of pagan worship. is the fair at Botnah. “May one go there?” If he was a guest139An Aramaic word formed from Greek ξένος “stranger.” The rule of the Mishnah was made for visitors., it is forbidden; a town dweller is permitted140As explained in Mishnah 3:6, real estate cannot become forbidden by being used for worship. A taxpayer of the place cannot be deprived by pagan worship of his right to use public roads.. A caravan is permitted since caravans go everywhere141Long distance travellers cannot be expected to know all local happenings; they may continue on their road.. How are they decorated? Rebbi Joḥanan said, with myrrh; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, with any kind142Not necessarily with flowers.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, all is forbidden143Since only myrrh is used, any myrrh used as decoration of any store in town is forbidden as pagan offering, whether or not it was intended as such.; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish only the addition is forbiddden. How is this done? If he usually takes five boxes outside and he took ten. If you say as a decoration, it is forbidden. If you say as sales practice144Greek πρᾶξις, read פרקסיס for פרקסים. If the store expects to do more business because of the fair but outside the fairgrounds, this is not pagan worship., it is permitted.

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden to be sold to them: Pine cones145Greek στρόβιλος “cone”., and white figs146Cf. Demay1:1, Note 5. with their stalks, and incense, and white cocks. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is permitted to sell a white cock among chickens; when it is alone he cuts one claw and sells it since one does not sacrifice defective ones in pagan worship. All other things are permitted if unspecified147If the Gentile does not specify that he needs the objects for pagan worship. but forbidden if specified. Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates148Cf. Note 155., and Nicolaos dates149A kind of large Syrian dates, cf. Berakhot6:5, Note 162. to Gentiles. HALAKHAH: “The following are forbidden.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: White figs with their stalks and pine cones with their attachments150Which are needed to decorate the thyrsus in Dionysian rites. Babli 14a.. “And incense.” It was stated, if it was a bundle it is permitted. How many are a bundle? “Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, there are no less than five kinds in a bundle of incense151Babli 14a, Tosephta 1:21.. If he was a pagan priest it is forbidden152A Jew may not sell him any of the items specified in the Mishnah even if he does not specify that he needs it for pagan worship., a medical man is permitted, a trader is permitted. A suspect trader is forbidden.” We have stated, “a white cock.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated unspecified “a cock.” Our Mishnah needs the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya needs our Mishnah. If we had stated but Rebbi Ḥiyya had not stated, we would have said, only a white cock but an unspecified cock would be permitted even alone. Therefore the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is needed. Or if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated but we had not stated, we would have said, this is only for an unspecified cock, but a white cock even among chickens is forbidden. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary and the baraita of Rebbi Ḥiyya is necessary. “A chicken to sell,” one may sell him a white cock. “A white cock to sell,” we say by itself it is forbidden, among chickens it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If one saw chickens grazing on a garbage heap and a white cock among them and said, whose is it? Is it as if he specified153Since he showed interest in the white cock alone, even if later in negotiating for the sale he does not mention it. Cf. Babli 14a.? If it had a defect. The verse says that they sacrifice defectives in pagan worship. If you present a blind one to be sacrificed, is there nothing bad154Malachi1:8. If it had not been acceptable for the Gentiles, the Jews would not have thought of doing this.? This says that they sacrifice defectives in pagan worship. “Rebbi Meïr says, it is also forbidden to sell good dates, and curved dates, and Nicolaos dates to Gentiles.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, Caryotis155Greek καρυῶτις “nut shaped kind of dates,” Babli 14b. The word חצד may be Arabic خضد “curved, bent”. The reading of the Yerushalmi is preferable to that of the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss., חָצָב, which designates a plant or bush having nothing to do with date palms (Peah2:1 Note 24).. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, it is a kind known as ḥaṣda. If somebody transgressed and sold? It will come similar to what Rebbi Eleazar said156Halakhah 7, end., if he transgressed and built it is permitted, and here if he transgressed and sold it is permitted.

MISHNAH: At a place where they used to sell small cattle to Gentiles one sells157At places where sheep and goats are not sacrificed in pagan rites.; at a place where they used not to sell one does not sell; nobody should change this because of controversy158Even if the situation changes one should not change old usage since this will destroy communal peace.. Nowhere does one sell to them large animals, calves, and donkey foals, whole or damaged159Cattle and donkeys were used as animals for work and beasts of burden. Belonging to Jews, these animals have a right to rest on the Sabbath. If they are sold to Gentiles, the seller deprives them of this right; depending on circumstances this might be counted as violation of the Sabbath by the seller. Calves and foals do not work but are raised for work.. Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones; Ben Bathyra permits horses160In antiquity horses were used only for riding, not for work. Even if the horse is used for hunting, he holds that transporting live animals or birds is not a breach of biblical Sabbath law.Mishnah and Halakhah are also in Pesaḥim 4:3 (פ) which partially survives in a Genizah text (ג) edited by L. Ginzberg, New York 1909. It is difficult to determine which text is original.. HALAKHAH: “At a place where they used to sell small cattle,” etc. But is it permitted to raise them161Since it is forbidden to raise sheep and goats in the Land of Israel (Mishnah Bava qamma7:10, Note 97), from where does one get them to sell them to a Gentile?? Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil162The Mishnah permits to raise goats and sheep in places unfit for agriculture. Mahir is described in Eccl. rabba1(34) as situated in the domain of the tribe of Reuben in Transjordan, a country of sheep and goats (Nuim. 32:4). Mentioned also in Pesaḥim5:3.. They wanted to say, he who said it is permitted to sell [says] it is permitted to raise163Read with Pesaḥim: “to leave alone”.. But he who says, it is forbidden to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone164Gentiles are suspected of bestiality (Mishnah 2:1).. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav165In the Babli, 14b/15a, this is R. Eleazar’s statement opposing Rav.: Even one who says it is permitted to sell it [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. What is the difference between selling and leaving alone? When he sells it to him it becomes the Gentile’s animal. If he lets it be alone with him, it is the Jew’s animal and he is suspected about it. “At a place where they used not to sell one does not sell.” Why? Because he eliminates the duty of shearing166The first shearing of sheep should be given to a Cohen, Deut. 18:4. But goats are not raised for wool and are included in the prohibition.. Think of it, if it was a goat! Because he eliminates the duty of the first-born167Which must be given to a Cohen, Deut. 15:19. But a male animal does not bear lambs and also is included in the prohibition.. Think of it, if it was a male! Because he eliminates the gifts168The parts of the animal to be given to a Cohen, Deut. 18:3.. Then one should not sell wheat to them because he eliminates the duty of ḥallah169The gift to the Cohen from bread dough, Num.15:20.; then one should not sell wine and oil to them because he eliminates the duty of benedictions170Which are pronounced before and after food, as described in the later Chapters of Tractate Berakhot.The problem treated here is that in the next paragraph it is stated that one does not sell large animals to Gentiles because of problems with the laws of the Sabbath. Therefore one is inclined to say that the prohibitions of Mishnah 5 are because of pagan worship and those of Mishnah 6 because of Jewish worship. It is shown that this does not hold; the first part of Mishnah 6 is about pagan worship, about places where sheep or goats are sacrificed by pagans; only the second part is about Jewish matters.. Nowhere does one sell large animals to them.” Why? For a large animal there might be an obligation for a purification offering172If the Gentile does work with the Jew’s animal on the Sabbath, it is a violation of the Sabbath by biblical standards.; for a small animal there can be no obligation for a purification offering. But does he not shear, does he not milk? One says, there it is liable, here he is liable173It is clear that shearing a sheep on the Sabbath is a violation of biblical law (Mishnah Šabbat7:2). The Yerushalmi holds that milking a goat also is a biblical prohibition. But giving the animal rest on the Sabbath is an obligation of the owner; he is liable even if another person does the work with his consent. But the Gentile who shears or milks the animal violates no prohibition; since the animal is passive the owner also does not violate any biblical statute.. But if it is sold, is it not the Gentile’s animal? The Babylonian Rebbi Immi174A Babylonian who immigrated to Galilee in the generation after R. Immi the Galilean. In the Babli 15a he is called Rami ben Rebbi Yeva. in the name of the rabbis there: Sometimes he sells it on trial and returns it after three days, then it turns out that he did do work with the Jew’s animal175If the Gentile takes the animal on Friday and returns it on Sunday he will have worked with it on the Sabbath with the agreement of the Jew who it turns out still is the owner.. Then on trial it should be forbidden, not on trial permitted. One is because of the other176This is a rabbinic “fence around the law,” far from biblical prohibitions.. If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean177A Gentile. While “Gentile” is used to emphasize the pagan character of a person, “Aramean” simply characterizes him as Non-Jew.. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double178Greek διπλῇ. In פ the Hebrew/ Aramaic translation is used. In פ and the Babli, Bekhorot3a, he authorizes a fine up to ten times its price. to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to Arameans179Translated following פ.. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah180Could R. Simeon ben Laqish act against accepted practice in this case?? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehuda181Tosephta Bekhorot2:1, Babli Bekhorot2b.: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling182Undisputed practice follows the Sages, cf. Note 187..” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal183The two cases have nothing in common.. “Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed184To ever work again.. They told him, may he not bring a male to it, he fertilizes it and it gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male (horse) [damaged one]185The text in parentheses is from the text here, the (correct) one in brackets from Pesaḥim. which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a female to him, she is fertilized by him and gives birth? Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses186Since the argument of the rabbis has nothing to do with Sabbath prohibitions. The Babli, 16a and Bekhorot2b, disagrees and reports that R. Jehudah denies that a disabled cow will accept a male.. There187Mishnah Bekhorot1:1., we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this188The note that one is not authorized to sell a pregnant animal to a Gentile. not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses? He said to them, Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses. “Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Ben Bathyra said this only about a male horse because it kills its owner in war. Some say, because it runs after females, and some say, because it stands still to urinate189At this moment the horse will not obey its master and therefore be dangerous.. What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after females, it does not run. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. [Rebbi Aḥa in the name of]190Added from the Pesaḥim texts. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone191Then it is used like a beast of burden and the same restriction may apply as to the sale of cattle. Babli 16a.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same192For the laws of Sabbath. Everybody agrees that “a living person carries himself”; it is permitted to carry a human baby from private to public domains. The rabbis restrict this to humans; R. Nathan explicitly and Ben Bathyra implicitly (Note 160) extend the rule to animals. Babli Šabbat94a., as it was stated193Tosephta Šabbat8:34 Babli Šabbat94a.: “If he carried out domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so194Why do they object because of the use of old horses which only implies a violation of rabbinic rules but not to the possible use of a younger horse in hunting which would violate biblical rules?? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon195Which makes the seller of the weapon an accessory to murder before the fact. Babli 16a. and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a (small) [large]196The correct text in brackets is from Pesaḥim, the text in parentheses is from Avodah zarah. In the last sentence, the Genizah text follows the one in Avodah zarah; this clearly is impossible. domestic animal197A horse is considered a tamed wild animal, not domesticated by nature.. Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Rebbi Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav198It should be Rav Ḥanin, not Rebbi. The Genizah text has the statement in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rav’s uncle and foremost teacher.: A wild animal is like a (large) [small]196The correct text in brackets is from Pesaḥim, the text in parentheses is from Avodah zarah. In the last sentence, the Genizah text follows the one in Avodah zarah; this clearly is impossible. domestic animal.

MISHNAH: One does not sell them bears and lions, or anything damaging to the public; nor does one build with them a basilica199Greek βασιλική “king’s palace”, a government building in the provinces, automatically dedicated to the worship of Rome and the Emperor., a gallows200Since one may assume that most of death sentences passed by the Roman government are unjust., a stadion201Greek στάδιον, the place of gladiator’s combats, race courses, etc., or a rostrum202Podiums for public speeches or trials.. But one builds with them public203Reading with Maimonides and the ‘Arukhדימוסיות from Greek δημόσια. and private baths; when they come to the cupola where an idol will be placed it is forbidden to build it. HALAKHAH: “One does not sell them bears and lions,” etc. Therefore something which does not present a danger to the public one may sell to them. Our Mishnah follows Rebbi204It is not known what this refers to.. As it was stated205Babli 18b, Tosephta 2:6, Yalquṭ Ps.1:1 (#613).: “One who sees snake charmers and conjurers, muqion, mupion, mulion, milarin, milaria, sigillarin, sigillaria206The different sources give different readings for the names of the performers.Yerushalimi:מוקיון מופיון מוליון מילרין מילריה סגילרין סגילרהTosephta ed. Zuckermandelבוקיון מוקיון מוליון סגלרין סגלריאTosephta ed. princepsבוקיון מוקיון מוליון סגלאדין סגלאדאBabli ed. princepsבוקיון מוקיון מוליון לוליון בלורין סלגוריןBabli Ms. Munichבוקיון מוקיון מוליון לוליון סגליון סגלקײן בלריןבלריון מלרין מלריון סלגלוריוןYalquṭבוקיון מוקיון מוליון לולין סגלין סגלדין כלרין בלריןמלרין מלריוןFor the words appearing in the Yerushalmi there seems to be unanimity that the first three are maccus, the buffoon, corresponding to the Babli’s bucco, μώκος the comedian, mulio the donkey trainer. Sigillaria is the holiday which concludes the saturnalia; Kohut notes a meaning “puppeteer” for sigillarius (סגילרין) quoted in DuCange’s Medieval Latin dictionary. Compare also sicinnista, “dancer (m.) of the sicinnis” a dance of satyrs (E. G.) The remaining two words מילרין מילריה seem to remain without reasonable identification., this is forbidden because of ‘seat of the scoffers,’ as it is said,207Ps. 1:1. in the seat of scoffers he did not sit. All this leads to neglect of the Torah, as it is said208Ps.1:2., but in the teachings of the Eternal is his desire. Going to the theater209Probably meaning: amphitheater (E. G.). Both Greek tragedy and Comedy were religious ceremonies. is forbidden as pagan worship, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, when they present offerings it is forbidden because of pagan worship, otherwise it only is forbidden because of ‘seat of scoffers.’ One who goes to the theater to shout210In the theater it was to vote with one of the parties. In the Babli sources (Babli and Tosephta), instead of מִתְחֵַשֵּׂד “to ingratiate oneself” one reads מִתְחַשֵּׁד “to be counted as one of them”. The meaning is the same.; if it is for a public need it is permitted, if to ingratiate himself it is forbidden. One who sits in the stadium is a spiller of blood211If there were no public, neither fights of gladiators nor fights of men with wild beasts would be staged.. Rebbi Nathan permits because of two reasons, because he can shout and save lives212If a wounded gladiator begs for his life, he can vote to let him live., and he can testify for a woman that she can remarry213If a Jew is killed in one of these performances the spectator can testify that his wife is a widow and can remarry..” If he transgressed and built. Rebbi Eleazar said, it remains permitted214Halakhah 1:5, Note 156. The Babli, 19b, knows only of R. Eleazar’s ruling.. Rebbi Mana said, it rather seems reasonable following the opinion that it is forbidden because he would have prevented215From the verb حيد “to deviate”. Maybe if the Jew had refused to build the cupola it would not have been built. the entire cupola.

MISHNAH: One does not sell to them anything connected to the ground, but one may sell for when it will be cut216This is a rule particular to the Land of Israel, to preserve the Jewish character of the land, as explained in Halakha 9. It does not apply to the diaspora.. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may sell for the purpose of cutting. HALAKHAH: “One does not sell to them anything connected to the ground,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is there also a disagreement about large cattle? May one sell for the purpose of slaughter? It was found stated: Also large cattle is in dispute; Rebbi Jehudah says, he may sell for the purpose of slaughtering217Babli 20a. This is not dependent on the Land; it applies everywhere. The Babli defines R. Jehudah’s adversary as R. Meïr..

MISHNAH: In the Land of Israel218As defined in Ševi‘it6:1. one does not lease houses to them and certainly not fields. In Syria219All territory ruled over by David but not included in the Land proper; cf. Peah7:6 Note 119. one leases houses to them but not fields. Outside the Land one sells houses to them and leases fields, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, also in the Land of Israel one leases houses to them but not fields; in Syria one sells houses and leases fields; outside the Land one sells both220The opinion of R. Yose is preeminent.. HALAKHAH: “One does not lease houses to them,” etc. 221Babli 19b/20a. The entire theory built on Deut. 7:2 is Amoraic even though in the Babli it is supported by a baraita. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya222These are two parallel traditions, one in the name of R. Yose bar Ḥanina, the other in the name of R. Joḥanan. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם223Deut. 7:2. The verse refers only to the original Canaanite inhabitants. do credit them with charm; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts; לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them encampment in the Land224The different interpretations are based on reading the word as derived from the roots חנן, חנם, חנה. They will be discussed in the inverse order of the first quote.. But did we not state, “Rebbi Yose says, also in the Land of Israel one leases houses to them”? A house is not a source of blessing; a field is a source of blessing225Cf. Babli Menaḥot66b Tosaphot s. v.מירוח.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun instructed that it is forbidden to let them lease a grave in the Land of Israel because of “do not give them encampment in the Land.226Since a permanent irrevocable lease is the equivalent of a sale.” לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts. But was it not stated227Tosephta Pesaḥim2:15; Babli Eruvin64b, Lev. rabba37(3). There it is stated that he went from Acco to Akzib near the Lebanese border riding on a donkey and implied that it was the day after the end of Passover.: “It happened that Rabban Gamliel was walking on the road and saw a loaf of bread132Greek κόλλιξ. thrown on the road. He said to his slave Tabi, pick up this loaf. He saw a Gentile coming towards him and said to him, Mabgai228Levy reads the name as derived from paganus, “village dweller”. It is possible to see here the root بجّ “to fatten animals” said of pasture., take this loaf. Rebbi Illai ran after him and asked him, what is your name? He told him, Mabgai. From where are you? He told him, from the guard-tower229From Latin burgus, watch lower at a limes, Greek πυργός “tower”. villages. Did Rabban Gamliel ever come to know you?, He told him, no. Rabban Gamliel had it right by the Holy Spirit. We learned from him three things. We learned that one does not pass over food. And that leavened matter of a Gentile is permitted immediately after Passover. And that one follows the majority of travelers230Since Tabi was circumcised and the time was just after the end of Passover, Rabban Gamliel riding on a donkey could not have asked his slave walking beside him to pick up a loaf of bread, and therefore acquiring it as ownerless, if he could not assume that it was lost by a Gentile since most of the travelers on that road were Gentiles. The road itself is described in Ševi‘it(6:1 Note 21) as being the border between Jewish Galilee to the East and pagan Phoenicia to the West. If the leavened bread had been the property of a Jew during Passover its usufruct would be permanently forbidden to Jews..” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is, in earlier times. But today we pass over edibles because of sorcery231Since abandoned food may be a health hazard, one is justified not to touch it.. 232Found in the same sources as the preceding paragraph, Note 227.“When he was leaving Akzib there came a person to ask about his vow233Which according to Pharisaic tradition can be dissolved by an ordained rabbi; cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim, p. 422; Nedarim3:1 Note 7.. He asked his travel companion, would you say that we drank a quartarius234About 135 ml. of Italian wine? He said to him, yes. He told the person who asked, walk with us until we dissipate our wine. When they came to the Tyrian Ladder235Modern Rosh Hanniqra on the Lebanese border. Rabban Gamliel dismounted, covered himself236Wrapped himself in his toga., sat down, and dissolved his vow. From his words we learned that a quartarius of wine intoxicates and that travelling dissipates the wine. Also that one does not ask about vows and gives no instruction after drinking wine237For priests officiating in the Temple this is a biblical prohibition, Lev. 10:9–10.. Also one does not dissolve vows while walking but covered and sitting.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he opened for him: Some blurt out unthinkingly like sword piercing238Prov. 12:18. etc. For example, one who made a vow not [to eat] a loaf. Woe if he eats, woe if he does not eat. If he eats he violates his vow. If he does not eat he sins against himself239The nazir who vows to abstain from wine at the end of his period of abstinence has to bring a purification offering usually reserved for sinners. His sin is that he voluntarily deprived himself of permitted enjoyments; cf. Nedarim1:1 Note 95, Qiddušin4:12 Note 272.. What should he do? He should go to the Sages who will dissolve his vow as is written, but the sayings of the Sages are healing. לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not credit them with charm. 240Babli 20a/b. A parallel (not a copy) is in Berakhot9:2, Notes 79–81. But was it not stated: It happened that Rabban Gamliel while walking on the Temple Mount saw a beautiful Gentile woman and recited a blessing over her. Does Rabban Gamliel usually look at women? It was a curved road, like a pswros241The word is unexplained; perhaps ἐπίσυρμα “trail or track made by something dragged.” (E. G.), he looked at her because he could not avoid her. But did not Rebbi Ze‘ura in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan say: לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not credit them with charm? What did he say? He did not say ἀβάσκαντα242Greek “free from harm” Berakhot9:2, Note 79. but “praised be He Who has beautiful creatures in His world,” because even if one saw a beautiful donkey, a beautiful camel, a beautiful horse, one says “praised be He Who has such beautiful creatures in His world.” Rebbi Simeon, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: a Jewish braider should not braid a Gentile because of “do not give on them charm.” Also a Jew should not be a Gentile’s best man because of do not contract marriage with them.243Deut. 7:3. Rebbi Isaac from Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to go to their wedding feasts, not a fortiori to become his best man? He told him, to put a biblical prohibition on it245However the verse refers only to Canaanites, not Gentiles in general. The prohibition remains rabbinic.. 246From here intermittently through fol. 43a line 7 there is a Geniza (G) text, in many places very fragmentary, edited by L. Ginzberg (New York 1909). From fol. 41d line 42 there exists a second Geniza text from the Antonin collection edited by J.N. Epstein (E), Tarbiz3 (1932) pp. 15–26, in addition to the Leiden ms. (L).The present paragraph is a copy from Demay6:1 (ד) Notes 15–18. In the readings, a reference (G) means that the word is not completely preserved in G. Rabbi Simon had vineyard planters on King’s Mountain247A region conquered by King Yannai and part of the later Hasmonean kingdom, not settled by the earlier returnees from Babylonia. Cf. Demay5 Note 115, Ševi‘it9 Note 63. In Amoraic times it was settled only by Gentiles.The text of the other two sources, “fields” is preferable over “vineyard planters”.. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, let them lie fallow and do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi]248Added from ד and G, missing in L, required by the context., may one lease them to a Gentile? Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi]248Added from ד and G, missing in L, required by the context. permitted it at a place where no Jews could be found as for example Syria. About Syria we can understand from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai went to Homs. Those of Bar Ashtor came and asked him: Since we cannot find Jews we lease to Gentiles;l do we have to tithe through them249The Gentile is not required to tithe. If he pays his rent in produce, is the landlord required to tithe? Produce in Syria has to be tithed only by rabbinic decree, twice removed from biblical duty. Since the Gentile acts on his own, not on behalf of the owner of the land, what he pays as rent is exempt Gentile produce.? He sent and asked Rebbi Ze‘ira. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked Rebbi Immi (and said to him, rabbi, does one have to tithe?)250Delete with ד and G. He told him, one does not have to tithe because of them. From this you (Rebbi Simeon)250Delete with ד and G. [understand]251Add as reading of ד and G. to lease following Rebbi Yose. In addition, from what Rebbi Ḥanina (Rebbi Abbahu)250Delete with ד and G. the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case. He sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa252Missing in G., Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him to lease following Rebbi Yose. Therefore one does not tithe through them253As explained in Note 249 there is no need to tithe. The only question is whether one should require them to tithe anyhow as a fine for leasing land to Gentiles, but since the lease is legitimate following R. Yose there is no reason for such a fine. The Babli agrees, 21a..

MISHNAH: Also in a case where they said to lease they did not mean a dwelling because he will introduce idols as it is said, do not bring an abomination into your house for you would be anathema like it255Deut. 7:26., etc. In any case he should not lease to him a bath house because it is called by his name256If the bath house (or any other public convenience) is known as the Jew’s property it cannot be operated on the Sabbath since people would think that the Jew operates it.. HALAKHAH: “Also in a case where they said to lease,” etc. Therefore, at a place where one is used to sell257Outside the Land for R. Meïr and in Syria for R. Yose., he may sell even a dwelling and lease a dwelling258Deut. 7:26 applies only to the Land. In the theory of the Babli, Gentiles outside the Land are no real idolators but only followers of inherited superstitions. Cf. Tosephta 2:8.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: Even a small room as in the tannery of Sidon259If a small room in an industrial complex cannot be leased to Gentiles as living space. A similar text in Babli 21b.. Not only all of it, but even one room. “If there were two, one inside the other, the inner one is liable, the outer one is not liable.260This is Mishnah Ma`serot3:5 (Note 92). Harvested grain becomes liable for tithes only when it is being prepared for storage. An example of this is grain transported from the field to the courtyard attached to the farmer’s dwelling. R. Jehudah holds that if there is a courtyard inside another, the inner one only counts in this respect.” If there was one and it was subdivided into two, two and combined into one261How do the rules of tithing apply? The question is inappropriate here and not answered.? Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there:262Of Babylonia. This263The argument of the Mishnah about leasing a bathhouse. In Tosephta 2:9, R. Simeon forbids leasing a field anywhere for the same reason. implies that if there was a field adjacent to a road it is forbidden to lease it to Gentiles because it is known by the name of the Jew and they plough there on Sabbaths and holidays.

MISHNAH: One does not put up an animal in hostelries1Cf. Chapter 1, Note 123. of Gentiles since they are suspected of bestiality. A woman should not be alone with them2A single woman with any number of Gentile men. because they are suspected of forbidden sexual relations; a man should not stay alone with them since they are suspected of shedding blood. A Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Non-Jew3Since she helps to increase the number of pagan worshippers. This reason given in the Halakhah is (incorrectly) part of the Mishnah in some Babli and Mishnah texts. but a Non-Jew may be a midwife for a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of a Non-Jewish woman but a Non-Jewish woman may nurse the child of a Jewish woman at her home4The wet-nurse should not be allowed to remove the baby from his mother’s house since she might kill it.. HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah5Unfortunately G is very lacunary here; therefore its readings are not given after the Hebrew text. The Halakhah starts: “R. Ze‘urah, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. ..… R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, explain it …” There is no reason to mention the sixth generation R. Abba III and the fifth generation R. Jonah who later disagrees with the statement if already it was attributed to the second generation R. Yose ben Ḥanina.: explain it6The Mishnah which forbids to put up unsupervised animals in the stable of a Gentile hostelry makes travel outside Jewish settlements practically impossible. An attribution to R. Eliezer removes the first part of the Mishnah from practice. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.7Mishnah Parah2:1. This refers to the Red Cow (Num. 19) whose ashes are needed to cleanse people from the impurity of the dead. The Cow is not a Temple sacrifice; how far the restrictions imposed on sacrificial animals and the officiating priests apply to the Cow and its officiants are old matters of dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees (Mishnah Parah3:3,7) and among the rabbis themselves. One of the biblical requirements is that the Red Cow never carried a yoke (Num. 19:2). In Mishnah Parah2:1, a first statement of R. Eliezer validates a pregnant Red Cow for the ceremonies; the reason is explained in Mishnah 4 by his student’s R. Illai’s son R. Jehudah, that a bull mounting the Cow on his own cannot be considered making her carrying anything; only copulation by human intervention makes the ox the equivalent of a yoke. The majority rejects the ruling; it considers the Cow and its fetus as two separate beings but v. 19:3 requires the Cow alone to be taken. These restrictions do not apply to ordinary sacrifices. R. Eliezer then forbids buying a Red Cow from Gentiles since a sodomized animal is unfit for the altar; the Sages disagree since without reason one does not suspect that such a thing happened; this would make the Mishnah here unreasonable. (The last generation R. Yose bar Abun even introduces buying a Red Cow from a Gentile into a story about R. Eliezer; Peah1:1 Notes 99 ff., Qiddušin1:7 Notes 607 ff.) Babli 23a.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone8One may not leave the animal alone with a Gentile. Chapter 1:6, Note 165. There the first tradent is R. Jonah himself.. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion9It is not said what everybody’s opinion is; the corresponding passage in G is in the name of “the rabbis of Caesarea, Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav” but then is missing the conclusion. One has to assume that it was “if he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion the animal remains permitted.”. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following10Mishnah Ketubot2:9. If she is jailed because of money matters one must assume that she was not raped; if she was condemned to death one must assume that she was raped or consented to sex with her jailers. If a woman can be alone in the custody of Gentiles without being raped, may the same not be assumed of female animals?: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it11The argument appears to be cogent.? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.12In the Mishnah, not only do the rabbis permit to buy a Red Cow from a Gentile owner, they also allow to buy sacrificial animals from him. The question arises whether R. Eliezer will agree with this or not. The assumption here is that R. Eliezer will agree that sacrifices can be bought from Gentiles but not the Red Cow, whose ceremonies in pharisaic theory were made with many non-scriptural restrictions because of an important difference with Sadducees in matters of ritual purity (Mishnah Parah3:7,8).” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you13Is.60:7. The verse ends: they will be brought on My altar for pleasure. This gives divine sanction for using animals raised by Gentiles for the altar. Since the verse speaks of sacrifices, not of the Red C ow, R. Eliezer must hold that sacrificial animals cannot be bought from Gentiles. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 24a., this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past14The preceding argument does not prove anything in practice since in the next paragraph it will be shown that in messianic times the Gentiles will accept the Torah. Their animals may well be acceptable then but not now.? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist15This is the same argument as before.? Rebbi Hoshaia said16In G: asked. This paragraph interrupts the discussion of the Mishnah and turns to explaining the verse Is.60:7 quoted earlier., why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They weighed for me my (sheqels) [wages]17Sach.11:12. The quote is wrong in L (in parentheses), correct in G [in brackets]. In v. 13 the pieces of silver are declared to be “the Eternal’s treasure;” this explains the identification as saints., thirty pieces of silver. These are the thirty commandments which the descendants of Noah will take upon themselves in the future18“In the future”, i. e, in the time of the Messiah. Gen. rabba98(14) as opinion of R. Joḥanan. In the Babli, Ḥulin92a, in one opinion 30 commandments which the Gentiles already took upon themselves, of which they keep only three; one of them being not to allow homosexual marriages.. But the rabbis say, there are the 30 just persons which the world never will be lacking19Gen. rabba35(2) in the name of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai. In the Babli, Ḥulin92a, in another opinion the 30 just Gentiles on whose merit the Gentile world exists. The Jewish world exists for the Babli on the merit of 36 just men (Sukkah45b, Sanhedrin97b)., as Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Mana, the world cannot be with less than 30 just men like our father Abraham. What is the reason? Abraham will certainly be20Gen. 18:18., the numerical value of יהיה is 30215+10+5+10=30.. Sometimes the majority are in Babylonia and the minority in the Land of Israel; sometimes the majority are in the Land of Israel and the minority in Babylonia. It is a good sign for the world if most of them are in the Land22Gen. rabba98(14) as opinion of Rav.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In the future the descendants of Noah will take all commandments upon themselves. What is the reason? Then I shall transform Gentiles’ purified lips23Zeph.3:9. The verse ends: They all are invoking the Eternal’s Name, to serve Him with united shoulder, implying that the Gentiles will accept the Jewish style of worship. Babli Berakhot57b, in the name of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai.. But at the end they will renege on it. What is the reason? Let us break their chains, and throw from us their ropes24Ps. 2:3; cf. Babli 3b.! That is the commandment of phylacteries25Midrash Psalms2(8). The chains are the straps of the phylactery on the arm.; that is the commandment of ṣiṣit26These are the “ropes”, Tosaphot Avodah zarah3b s. v. ומניחין.. 27One returns to the prior topic, to try to understand R. Eliezer’s position in view of biblical verses which seem to indicate that Gentile animals are perfectly acceptable as sacrifices. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, is it not written282Chr.15:11. At first glance this refers to the booty which they took from the Nubians as described in Chapter 14 since no other war of Asa was mentioned.: On that day they slaughtered of the booty for the Eternal? They explained it, but we do not know whether the colleagues explained it or Rebbi Immi explained it, from previous ones, from booty which was in their hands they sacrificed29Since Chapter 15 does not refer to the war described in Chapter 14, it is not necessary to assume that “the booty” was taken from the Nubians.. But is it not written301S. 6:15, one the day the Philistines returned the Ark on a carriage drawn by cows.: The men of Bet Shemesh brought an elevation offering and slaughtered family offerings to the Eternal, oxen? Can we learn anything from the rulers of the Philistines? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they even sacrificed females, the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal311S. 6:14. In Lev. 1:3 it is spelled out that an elevation offering must be a male animal. Since the entire proceedings were irregular, one cannot infer anything about the rules to follow.. But is it not written321S. 15:15. As explained in v. 21, the animals taken from the Gentile tribe were to be slaughtered as sacrifices. Babli 24b., Saul said, they brought them from the Amalekite? One does not learn from Saul; as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Saul was a sycamore shoot33Something inedible. In the Babli, Eruvin53a/b, the verse 1S. 14:47 in interpreted that religious practice never follows Saul. The same is intended here.. But it is not written342S. 24:24., David bought the threshing floor? He bought but did not sacrifice. But is it not written352S. 24:23. To give pleasure before the Eternal usually is asserted of sacrifices (e. g., Ex. 28:38). Babli 24b., Arawna said to the king, may the Eternal, your God, have pleasure with you. May he find pleasure with you in prayer. But is it not written36Lev. 22:25., Also from the hand of a stranger you should not bring your God’s bread from any of these? From any of these you do not sacrifice; you buy unblemished ones and sacrifice. What does Rebbi Eliezer do with this? You are buying for money and sacrifice? The one who stated “for money” cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer37Since R. Eliezer considers all animals of a Gentile unfit for the altar. But he must read the verse as absolute prohibition of accepting any sacrifice from a Gentile, similar to Sifra Emor Pereq7(12) where the verse is read to prohibit accepting money of the Temple tax from Gentiles.. It was stated:38Babli 14a, Tosephta 3:2. “One does not put up animals in hostelries, even males next to males and females next to females; it is not necessary to say males next to females and females next to males.” Males next to males, what do you have? His beloved comes and she does not find him, then she is impregnated by it39By the animal. Since Gentiles are used to have pre- and extramarital sex, if one of the partners feels the need for sex but does not find his/her partner, he/she will take an animal as replacement to satisfy him/her. The Tosephta holds otherwise, viz., that male animals attract homosexuals and females heterosexuals. If males are put next to females, animal copulation will stimulate Gentile voyeurs.. Females next to females, what do you have? Her lover comes and does not find her and impregnates it. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Not only the Jew’s animal at a Gentile’s but even a Gentile’s animal at a Jew’s should not be left alone with another Gentile acquaintance, lest it cause him a mishap40The Jew would be the instrument of the second Gentile’s copulation with the first Gentile’s animal.. But then even if he leased his animal it would not be nice to return it to be alone with him, lest it cause him a mishap? He is suspected of cohabiting with another’s animal; he is not suspected to have sexual relations with his own animal. For he knows that if he cohabits with her he makes her sterile; therefore he will not cohabit with her41Babli 15a, 22b.. “But one may put up an animal in a Samaritan hostelry,”42Tosephta 3:1. The Note “etc.” implies that the entire Tosephta (or an equivalent Galilean baraita) should have been quoted. etc. This implies that Samaritans are not suspected of forbidden relations. And it was stated thus43Tosephta Qiddušin5:9.: “A woman may be alone with two men44Two Jews. This excludes being alone with husband, father, son, and possibly brother (Qiddušin4:11, Notes 246–254). Babli 25b., even if both are slaves45Converted and circumcised who belong to a Jewish familia. or one a Samaritan and one a slave. But she should not be alone with a Gentile46This statement is obviously incomplete since a Jewish woman is not allowed to be alone with a single Jewish man, so certainly not with a single Gentile. One must read with the Tosephta and G, of which a new leaf starts here: “not even with a hundred Gentiles.”. His mother-in-law, and his wife’s sister, and all other forbidden relations should be alone with him but require the presence of two [others]47Tosephta Qiddušin5:10, Babli Qiddušin81b. These Babli sources have “sister” instead of “wife’s sister” but the Yerushalmi text is confirmed by G. In contrast to the Babli, the Yerushalmi both here and in Qiddušin unquestionably permits a man to be alone with his sister (but not to share a bed with her.).” It was stated:48Tosephta 2:4, Babli 15b. “One sells them neither weapons nor accessories to weapons49Such as a sheath of a sword.. One does not sharpen weapons for them.” Explain it in a town of only Gentiles50But in a town with Jewish inhabitants one may provide weapons for the security forces.. Is a woman not in danger to be killed51This refers to the Mishnah which states that a woman is in danger to be raped but a man to be killed.? Rebbi Immi52In G: R. Mana, the same in a quote in Or zarua. In the latter’s interpretation, a strong woman is one who would survive a gang rape. In a quote in Tosaphot 25b s. v. איכא R. Jeremiah. said, explain it about a muscular one. Rebbi Abin said, even you may say [about a weak one.53Added from G. (The vocalization is from G.)] A woman may hide herself and say, I am a Gentile, but a man cannot hide himself and say, he is a Gentile54Since he is circumcized.. It was stated54Tosephta 3:4, Babli 25b.: “If a Gentile is paired with a Jew, he puts him on his right hand side. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says, with a sword, at his right; with a staff, at his left55Since the sword is girded at his right side and the staff held in his left hand. The Gentile should not have space to swing his weapon.. If he climbs with him to an upper floor or descends to the exit, the Jew should be higher and the Gentile below. He should not lie down before him lest he smite his skull. And he should extend the way to him, that if he asks him where he goes he should indicate a farther distance, as our father Jacob did with Esau, until I shall come to my Lord at Seir56Gen. 33:14.. But he went to Sukkot. Rebbi Huna said, we do not find that our father Jacob went to Seir. Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi [Aivo]57Added from G, missing in L., he spoke to him of the future world, when saviors will climb on Mount Sion to judge Mount Esau.58Ob. 21.” 59Tosephta 3:3, Babli 26a.“A Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Non-Jew, for she brings a son60This is the reading in all sources except G which reads גוי “Gentile” instead of בן “son”. Cf. Chapter 1, Note 177. to pagan worship; but a Non-Jew may be a midwife for a Jewish woman.” It was stated so: From the outside but not the inside. She should not put her hand inside not to squish the fetus in her innards, and she should not give her a cup of root-extract to drink61A concoction used to prevent pregnancies. The obligation of having children uniquely is on the male (Mishnah Yebamot6:6); therefore a woman is permitted to use chemical birth control methods which do not change the sex act. Since Gentiles are suspect as potential murderers such a potion may be taken only from a Jewish source or, as indicated later in this paragraph, also from a duly qualified Gentile professional.. If she was a medical doctor? This will come as what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted62Babli 27a, also in the name of R. Joḥanan. He has to worry about his professional reputation.. And here, if she was a medical doctor it is permitted. [Rebbi Yose bar Abun, these questions … [doc]tor permitted.63Fragment in G of a sentence missing in L and the editio princeps; probably a confirmation of the permission to use Gentile certified medical professionals.] “A Jewish woman should not nurse the child of a Non-Jewish woman” because she gives it life64In Tosephta 3:3 “because she raises a son for pagan worship” as in the preceding paragraph. G is defective at this point.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one may not teach him a trade65In order to live one has to make a living. Therefore it is a religious duty for a man to see to it that his son learn a trade; cf. Qiddušin4:12.. As the following: Two trades, glaziers and carpenters66A hybrid of Greek κιβωτός “box, chest” (in LXX used to translate תֵּיבָה) and the Latin suffix -arius“craftsman of …” There exists a Greek word κιβωτάριον but this is a diminutive, “small box or chamber” and does not designate a profession.Jastrow explains as “maker of pickles” but this is a gross misreading of κιβώτιον in Terumot10:3, Note 36. were at (Giro) [Acco]67No place Giro (ms. L) is known. (If one would read גידו the place would be Jedda in Arabia.) Acco (reading of G) was known as a city divided between Jews and Gentiles, only partially within the borders of the Land; cf. Ševi‘it 6:1 Note. 30.. The glaziers did not teach68They did not accept Gentile apprentices. and continued, the carpenters taught and were pushed out. “But a Non-Jewish woman may nurse the child of a Jewish woman” as it is written, their kings will be your pedagogues and their princesses your wet nurses69Is. 49:23, giving divine sanction to Gentile wet nurses.. It was stated: A baby nurses continuously from a Non-Jewish woman or from a non-kosher animal and one brings him milk from anywhere and does not worry either about abomination or because of impurity70The Babylonian attitude is expressed in Tosephta Šabbat9:22: One does not nurse from a Non-Jewish woman or from a non-kosher animal but if it was a matter of survival nothing stands before saving lives..

MISHNAH: One may be healed from the healing of property but not healing of persons. One may not be shaved from them anywhere71Since the barber easily may cut the client’s throat with his knife., the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say it is permitted in the public domain but not in private. HALAKHAH: “One may be healed from the healing of property,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “healing of property,” his animal. “Healing of persons,” his body72Babli 27a.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If it was scratched it is forbidden73Babli loc. cit. He does not permit any Gentile doctor, even qualified, to do any surgical procedure on the body of a Jew; only medication can be accepted.The translation reads here נחמס as in the sequel, not נחמם “developed a fever.” G is missing at this passage.. As in the following case: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah the Prince to the hot springs of Gader74Where usually the intercalation of a month was announced.. He hurt his finger and put a bandage75Latin splenium“pad, wound dressing”; cf. Orlah3:1 Note 20. on it. He saw it penetrate and cut it off76Arabic قلم “to cut”. The feminine suffix shows that the bandage (f.) was cut off, not the finger (m.).. Did he not hear what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted62Babli 27a, also in the name of R. Joḥanan. He has to worry about his professional reputation.? This is not comparable. There if it was scratched it is permitted, but here it was scratched and is forbidden77Deriving חמס from a root like Arabic خمش “to scratch”. He could not go to the local Gentile doctor because he needed surgical intervention which according to Rav Jehudah is forbidden; R. Joḥanan permits only non-surgical interventions.. May one have one’s eyelids painted by them78Applying koḥl, originally the Aramaic/Arabic name for antimony, then used for any paste applied in ophthalmology.? Rav said, anybody who wants to be blinded may be blinded. Levi said, anybody who wants to die may die79Babli Niddah55b.. Rav never had his eye painted; Levi had his eye painted. Rebbi Abba said, but do we not see that they taste this collyrium80Greek κολλύρα “eye salve”.? We may say that they taste it if it is good. If it is no good it keeps and blinds. Opium81Greek ὄπιον. is dangerous. Treacle82Greek θηριακή, scil. ἀντίδοτος, “antidote against a poisonous bite.”, Rebbi Simon says it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan83In G: E. Immi. This seems a more trustworthy reading. says it is permitted. 83aFrom here to almost the end of the Halakhah there is a parallel in Šabbat 14:4 (ש); in addition the present paragraph still is available in a Genizah text (G). If these two sources present a common reading different from the text here, one may assume that the text here is in error, either by the scribe or in the text from which he copied. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath84In the Babli, 28a, this is the position of Rebbi Immi. Since medical practice usually involves activities biblically forbidden on the Sabbath, such as compounding medicines and ointments or surgical interventions, also healing activities which do not involve these prohibitions are rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath. However, if a condition is life-threatening, Sabbath prohibitions do not apply. A declaration that “one heals such-and-such a condition on the Sabbath” is the equivalent of declaring the condition as life-threatening.. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state85Mishnah Šabbat14:4. While one is permitted to drink (diluted) vinegar on the Sabbath, one may not use it as a pain killer since this is medical treatment of a situation which in general is not life-threatening.: “A person having a tooth ache should not suck vinegar with them”? Is this not inside from the lips? Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath86Babli 27b/28a, in the name of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath87Any injury to the skull bones.. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat88Babli 28b. The translation used here of “daughters of the ear” is an interpretation of Rashi’s explanation in the Babli: “Sinews of the ear which sometimes are lowered and keep the jaws open; then it is necessary to lift them and this is dangerous.” on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye89“An eye which rebelled”: it feels as if the eye would leave its place. Babli 28b. on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger90Any wounds at these places are considered life-threatening. Babli 28a.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous91Dark red color of a wound is indication of a life-threatening infection.. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spit is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath92Babli Šabbat108b, with the names of Rav and Samuel switched. Since people sometimes put wine on their eyelids for non-medical reasons, it is permitted to do the same for minor aches for which medical intervention would be forbidden on the Sabbath. From this you infer for lichen93A skin disease, purely external.. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula94“Frog” (Aramaic), Latin ranula, an infection of the mouth. is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah (said) [from Acco]95The text in parentheses is from the Leiden ms., the one in brackets from G and ש. in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness96This may either describe the bite of a spider or more likely a cancerous growth looking like a spider. is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover97Using leavened matter on Passover is a deadly sin but for medical purposes in life threatening situations it may be used without hesitation.. A boil is permitted.98A boil filled with pus may be opened on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this99Mishnah Šabbat17:2. As a matter of principle one may move a vessel on the Sabbath only if it is of any use on this day. A sewing needle cannot be used for its usual function on the Sabbath but may be used to remove a thorn in one’s foot or to open a boil.: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye100This may describe a cataract or glaucoma., they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted it to them. He101R. Jeremiah. G ends here. told them, also I am permitting it. 102It seems that the original of this paragraph is in Šabbat14:4. Babli 28a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Scurvy103This is the meaning of צַפְדִּינָה in modern Hebrew. The different vocalization here is based on the text in Šabbat. Rashi in the Babli explains the word as French muguet, English thrush, a sickness producing a musk like smell of the mouth. is dangerous. Rebbi Joḥanan had it; he was treated by the daughter of Domitianus104Translation of the text in Šabbat. Here “Domitianus’s”. If they are professionals, female doctors are as acceptable as male. of Tiberias. Friday evening he went down to her105In Šabbat14:4, “went up.” In Tiberias, one goes up or down, almost never level. and asked her, will I need anything tomorrow? She said no, but if you need anything take date pits, some say of Nicolaus dates, split and heated, skin106Bran. of barley grain, and dry excrement of a baby, grind it and apply it; do not tell this to anybody. The next day he went up and preached it in the House of Study107In Šabbat14:4 “in public”, which is the better version.. She heard it and strangled herself; but some say that she converted108Either she committed suicide because she lost her trade secret or she converted because she admired R. Joḥanan who made the recipe public and did not try to make money through his knowledge.. You understand from this three things. You understand that scurvy is dangerous. You understand that anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath84,In the Babli, 28a, this is the position of Rebbi Immi. Since medical practice usually involves activities biblically forbidden on the Sabbath, such as compounding medicines and ointments or surgical interventions, also healing activities which do not involve these prohibitions are rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath. However, if a condition is life-threatening, Sabbath prohibitions do not apply. A declaration that “one heals such-and-such a condition on the Sabbath” is the equivalent of declaring the condition as life-threatening.109Since R. Joḥanan acted on this, it is practice notwithstanding R. Ze‘ira’s criticism.. You understand what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted. Rebbi Joshua ben Levy was suffering from colic110Greek κῶλον, “gut, disease of the colon.”; Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan instructed him to grind taḥlusin111This probably is a plural of תּוּכְלָא “hard unripe date” which can be ground rather than תִּחְלֵי “cress, nasturtium” which could be cut but not ground., put it in old wine and drink it to avoid becoming endangered112Since this is not a usual drink; its use on the Sabbath is rabbinically prohibited but to avoid future danger this prohibition can be waived. R. Joshua ben Levy was himself at least as qualified as the other two authorities to decide but he did not want to apply a leniency to himself on his own word.. His113R. Joshua ben Levi’s grandson. grandson suffered from choking; there came one, whispered something in the name of Jesus ben Pandera114This name (or Panṭera) is unexplained. [Perhaps a distortion of Greek πανταρκής, Latin Pantarces, “all-helping”, a surname of Jupiter (E. G.)]. and he could breathe. When he left, he asked him115R. Joshua ban Levi asked the Christian missionary., what did you say over him? He answered, such and such words. He said, it would have been better for him had he died and not heard these words. It happened to him116The grandson died., like an erroneous order from a ruler. Rebbi Jacob [bar Idi]117From the text in Šabbat, needed for chronological reasons. In the Babli, Pesaḥim25a, the tradition is by R. Abin (Abun) in the name of R. Joḥanan. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One heals with anything except pagan worship, uncovering nakednesses, and spilling blood118The three sins which one is not permitted to commit even in order to save one’s life. Since Christian faith healing is rejected before pagan healing is discussed it is clear that it is not rejected as pagan but as falsely claiming to be Jewish.. Rebbi Phineas asked: So far if he said, bring me leaves from pagan worship, and he brought him. If he said to him bring me leaves (unspecified) and he brought him from pagan worship? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Aḥa had a fever attack. They brought him from the penis of Dohi119A pagan statue with a spout in form of a penis, like Brussel’s Manneken Piss. but he did not drink. They brought to Rebbi Jonah and he drank. Rebbi Mana said, if my father Rebbi Jonah had known from where it was, he would not have drunk120Therefore healing by idolatrous materials is forbidden even if not specifically asked for.. Rebbi Huna said, (this means) [a baraita implies]121Since the proof follows the statement, the text in brackets, from Šabbat, has to be preferred over the text here (in parentheses). that one does not heal through uncovering nakedness122The technical term for criminal acts of a sexual nature, including but not restricted to incest and adultery., as it was stated: The Sabbath was permitted in exceptional cases; the betrothed maiden was never permitted in exceptional cases123The laws of the Sabbath are suspended in the Temple where the prescribed sacrifices are slaughtered and burned, actions which outside would be capital crimes. But a preliminarily married woman is absolutely forbidden for any man without exception.. Was not the Sabbath permitted in exceptional cases for healing? Therefore the betrothed maiden was never permitted, not even for healing. Not only if one said to another, bring me a married woman, but even to hear her voice, as the following124Babli Sanhedrin75a. The text in the Babli makes it clear that R. Eleazar here is the Tanna, ben Shamua.: In the days of Rebbi Eleazar a man loved a woman and fell dangerously ill. They came and asked Rebbi Eleazar, should she parade before him that he may live? He said to them, he should die but not this. May he hear her voice and live? He said to them, he should die but not this. How was it? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, one said, she was a married woman, but one said, she was single. One who said that she was a married woman we understand. But the one who said that she was single? Did not Bar Koḥa the carpenter125It is possible that Ben Koḥa is not a proper name but means “strongman”. love a woman in the days of Rebbi Eleazar and (became dangerously sick) [and he permitted him]126The text in brackets is from Šabbat, to be preferred over the text here in parentheses. The main point is that R. Eleazar permitted the man to date the woman and to contract a marriage which was neither pre-arranged nor brokered.? One case about a married woman and the other about a single one. Even you may say, here and here about a single one, here and here about a married woman. Explain it that he became infatuated with her when she still was married. Some want to say, she was a woman of substance (and did not listen to him) [and did not want to marry.]127The text in brackets is from Šabbat, to be preferred over the text here in parentheses. In the Babli they hold that the man was not interested in marriage at all, only in sex. Everything which he did was forbidden; therefore he did permit nothing to him. Rebbi Ḥanina said, (this means) [a baraita implies]121Since the proof follows the statement, the text in brackets, from Šabbat, has to be preferred over the text here (in parentheses). that one does not heal through spilling blood, as we have stated there128Mishnah Ahilut7:6. The Mishnah states that if a child during childbirth endangers the life of the mother one saves the mother’s life by cutting the fetus into pieces. But if head and part of the body are already born so that the baby breathes on his own one may not harm him. Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary notes “all this is obvious and does not need commentary.”: “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him,” we suspect that he will live129Even though the baby might be stillborn (this includes the possibility that he might not live for a full thirty days after birth, in which case a person killing the baby could not be prosecuted for murder), if actually he is breathing on his own he must be treated as certainly being alive., “for one does not push aside one life before another life.” Not only if one would say, kill this person, but even if he tell him, injure that person. A Gentile against a Gentile, a Gentile against a Jew, is liable130Is prosecutable in a Jewish court.. A Jew against a Gentile is not liable131Is not prosecutable by biblical rules, only by the king’s police powers (cf. Sanhedrin6:5 Note 75).. Rav Ḥisda asked, may one save the life of an adult with the life of a minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state, “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi:132In Šabbat: Rav Ḥisda. There it is different for it is not known who is endangering whom. 133Babli 27b. According to this source, ben Dama was the son of R. Ismael’s sister. It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him (,and told him, I shall speak to you)134Addition in the text here. in the name of Jesus ben Pandera. Rebbi Ismael said to him, Ben Dama you are not allowed. He told him, I shall bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rebbi Ismael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, (to confirm)134Addition in the text here. as it is written135Eccl. 10:8. The fence is a stone wall without mortar with holes in which a snake may hide., he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake. But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World136The mythical snake which seduced Eve.. What could he have said? Which a person should do and live by them137Lev. 18:5.. “One who cuts a Gentile’s hair cuts it until he comes to the lock138A word of undetermined etymology which R. Ḥananel in his Commentary to Sanhedrin21a explains by Arabic دوابة which means both a toupee and a mane; cf. Chapter 1, Note 105. Levy suggests Latin vellera crinis.. Once he comes to the lock he desists. One who gets a haircut from a Gentile looks in the mirror139To make sure that the Gentile will not cut his throat. In general, for a man to look in a mirror to check on his grooming is rabbinically forbidden as “woman’s garb” (Deut. 22:5). Babli 29a., from a Samaritan he does not look into the mirror140Since they are (Sadducee) Jews, there is no reason to allow looking in a mirror.. They permitted the family of Rebbi141The Patriarch’s family, the official representative of the Jews vis-a-vis the Roman Government from the Severan Emperors to Theodosius II. that they might look, because they were in need of Roman government connections.142Tosephta 3:4.” Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock143Greek κόμη., and that they taught their children Greek144Not simply the Greek language which every trader had to master but Greek education, literature, and philosophy, which are intrinsically pagan. Babli Soṭah 49b., because they were in need of Roman government connections. A convert was a barber and astrologer145Greek ἀστρόλογος, ἀστρολογία.. He saw in his astrology145Greek ἀστρόλογος, ἀστρολογία. that Jews were spilling his blood. This only referred to his circumcision but when a Jew came to him to get a haircut, he killed him. How many did he kill? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said eighty. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said three hundred. At the end they prayed about him and he returned to his origin146Then Jews who came to his place had to watch in a mirror what he was doing.. 147Giṭtin 4:6, Notes 170–172. It was stated: One does not buy from a Gentile who sells Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzzot148This opposes a Tosephta (3:6, Babli Giṭtin 45b) which permits to buy these from a Gentile trader if one is able to check that they are written according to the special rules. The problem is that one may be able to verify that all letters were written correctly but it is impossible to verify that the leather (or in later technology the parchment) was prepared correctly and that they were written by a Jew obligated to have one of these. The latter requirement is indispensable.. 149Tosephta 3:7, Babli Giṭtin 45b.“It happened that a Gentile in Sidon was selling phylacteries, Torah scrolls, and mezuzzot. The case came before the Sages who ruled that one might buy from him.” Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: This was a convert who returned to his origin150Since conversion to Judaism is irreversible, even if he starts following pagan rites again he remains obligated to wear phylacteries, to affix a mezuzzah to his doorpost, and to study Torah, i. e., also empowered to write it..

MISHNAH: The following Gentile properties are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct: Wine151One may assume that the Gentile before drinking the wine made a libation to the gods. If done for a full barrel, it makes all the wine in the barrel forbidden as חֶרֶם (Deut. 13:18) which biblically is forbidden for all usufruct., and vinegar which originally was wine152Even though it is no longer wine and cannot be used for libations, since it remains usable the original prohibition is not removed., and Hadrianic pottery,153Very porous earthenware which is soaked in wine to absorb it. It is taken on caravan trips to give a taste of wine to water taken on the trip. and heart-removed skins154Skins of the belly which show that the heart was removed before the animal was skinned. This is done only in pagan rituals; the animal including any parts not used in pagan worship is חֶרֶם.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if the tear is circular they are forbidden, oblong permitted. Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted but what leaves is forbidden because it is sacrifice to the dead, the words of Rebbi Aqiba155The expression “sacrifice to the dead” is from Ps. 106:26; it describes all pagan sacrifices.. It is forbidden to trade with those who go to ugliness156This is the meaning of the word in other contexts. The meaning here is not uncontested, cf. Notes 220 ff.. HALAKHAH: “The following Gentile properties are forbidden,” etc. 157This paragraph and many of the following have a parallel in Terumot8:5 (Notes 82–111). At places the text here is a reformulation, not a direct copy, of the text there; though it is not excluded that both might represent the same original by two very different paths of copying. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Bitter, sweet, and hot are not under the rules of being uncovered158In both Talmudim it is assumed that a snake will drink from uncovered unattended fluids and in the process poison the drink for humans. Then the drink cannot be used, neither can it be sold since this would be “putting a stone in the path of a blind person.” This makes uncovered unattended wine almost as forbidden as wine used for pagan practices.. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine159Babli 30a. “Libation wine” is the technical term for Gentile wine which was used for pagan libations or other pagan ceremonies and therefore is forbidden for all usufruct.. Rebbi Simon explains: The hot, spice wine160Latin (vinum) conditum.. The bitter, vermouth wine161Greek ἀψίνθιον, “wormwood, Artemisia Absinthium.”. And the sweet, cooked wine. Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the custudy of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi (Joshua) [Hoshaia]162The text in brackets is the reading of the text in Terumot; it is preferred since no Amora “R. Joshua” without patronymic is known., Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥanianiah the colleague of the rabbis, went to visit him. They saw Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal sitting there. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening, let us ask him. He said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules of being uncovered or under those of libation wine. One said to him, maybe that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told them, it is for action and you can rely on it. When (they got up) [returned]163The text in brackets is the reading of the text in Terumot, the one in parenthesis is the text here., Rebbi Ila was standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana and told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is this not a baraita? As Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.164Babli 29b. The statement implies that Jewish cooked wine (pasteurized grape juice) cannot become forbidden after being handled by a Gentile.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “wine and vinegar which originally was wine165But anything manufactured from wine that was not originally forbidden does not become forbidden; same consequence as in the preceding Note..” 166Terumot 8:5 Notes 91–94. Rebbi Immi had guests. He said to them, if my cooked wine had not been left uncovered, would I not have served you? Rebbi Vivian said, bring it and we shall drink. He answered, he who wants to die should go and die in his own house. Bar Yudani had uncovered spice wine. He went and asked the rabbis who forbade it. But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet, are not under the rules of being uncovered. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Titus: About one which consists of one to three parts ground [spices]167One part spices for every three parts wine (one fourth of the volume) is the minimal concentration for which R. Joshua ben Levi’s rule may be applied.. They asked before Rebbi Abbahu, what is the rule for uncovered cooked [wine]? He told them, Rebbi Joḥanan had a problem with carenum168Latin carenum, Greek κάροινον, wine which by cooking has lost one third of its volume. Since the alcohol-producing bacteria die at 13% alcohol by volume, if the volume has shrunk by one third certainly all alcohol had evaporated and no alcohol was left in the fluid. and you are asking me this? They asked Rebbi Isaac and he forbade it to them. Then Rebbi Abbahu remembered that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, it is forbidden169R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement is rejected in practice.. (Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar.)170In the Leiden ms. this sentence was deleted by the scribe; it does not appear in the prints. In Terumot, the corresponding sentence reads: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: if he was entering and leaving it is permitted. This means that one may assume that no snake came out of its hole to eat from the food or drink the fluid if there was constant traffic in the room. The sentence really is needed to justify R. Abba bar Mamal’s ruling in the sentence after the next. Possibly it was deleted to indicate that the passage here should not be considered an exact copy of the text in Terumot. Terumot 8:5 Note 95. The barrel of Ben Neṭoza became uncovered. He went and asked Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, who told him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: if he was sleeping it is permitted171Also here one does not assume that a snake would venture into the room, even though the story in the next paragraph disproves the assumption. The statement also is rejected in the Babli, 30a.. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one said, if he was sleeping it is permitted; the other said, if he was sleeping it is forbidden. In is reasonable [to infer] that Rebbi Ḥanina said, if he was sleeping it is permitted, since Rebbi Eleazar everywhere relies on Rebbi Ḥanina172The frequent disagreements of R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan in both Talmudim really are disagreements between R. Ḥanina and R. Joḥanan.. 173Terumot8:5 Notes 96–101; the text is somewhat reformulated. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul understands it from the following occurrence. It happened that a woman loved to do good deeds but her husband hated good deeds. There came a poor man and she gave him to eat. While he was eating she noticed her husband; she made him climb and hid him in the upper floor. She returned to her husband who ate and fell asleep. There came a snake and ate from what was before him; her husband awoke from his sleep and wanted to eat. The one in the upper floor started to talk174To warn the husband not to eat from the leftovers.. That means if he was sleeping it is permitted175Without warning the husband would have eaten the poisoned food. This proves both that the rule is that one may eat food left while a person is sleeping nearby and that the rule is questionable, at least if there is a house snake familiar with the happenings there.. It was used to it. But is it not forbidden because of being alone? For they committed adultery, blood is on their hands176Ez. 23:37.. Since he is not suspected of one he is not suspected of the other177Since the guest saved the husband from danger to his life he is not suspected of wanting him to die; this also clears him of any suspicion of adultery (Babli Nedarim81b).. 178Terumot8:5 Notes 104–105. A pious person happened to be insistent in the matter of uncovered [drinks]; he was smitten with a fever. They saw him preaching on the Day of Atonement with a flask of water in his hand179For medical reasons he would be permitted to take small sips of water on the day of the fast but it was extraordinary that he would have wanted to be seen with a flask of water which might lead people to believe that he did not fast. He took that chance rather than to risk leaving the water unattended.. 180Terumot8:5 Notes 102–103. Although in the first part the Terumot text appears as the original, from here on the order of texts makes more sense. The only connection the present paragraph has with the others is the mention of the Day of Atonement (missing in Terumot) which was introduced in the preceding one (and continues in the next one with the original theme.) It happened that a butcher in Sepphoris sold Jews carcasses and torn meats. Once on the eve of the day of Atonement before nightfall he drank a great deal of wine and became drunk. He went to the roof, fell down, and died. The dogs started to lick his blood; people came to ask Rebbi Ḥanina how to remove him from before them. He told them, it is written181Ex.22:30., holy people you shall be to Me; torn meat on the fields you shall not eat, you must throw it to the dogs. This one robbed the dogs and fed the Jews carcasses and torn meat. Let them alone, they are eating from their own. 182Terumot8:5 Notes 106–112. These are the last paragraphs having a parallel there. A person’s amphora of wine became uncovered on the eve of the Great Fast. He went to pour it out; another person said to him, bring it and I shall drink it. He told him, it was uncovered. He answered, does not the Master of the Day exist? He had not finished tasting when he started shaking. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: All poisons cause scab but the poison of a snake kills183Babli 31b: reptile poisons do not kill except that of a snake.. Rebbi Ḥiyya said, one is not asked about uncovered [drinks]184One should not ask a rabbi to authorize behavior that will endanger one’s health. Babli 30a.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze`ira; as master of the ruling he asked him185How could R. Jeremiah have asked if he is the person who teaches that one does not ask? He asked in order to be able to formulate his rule.. Rebbi Ze`ira was dozing; he was sitting and eating in the evening. The light went out; he put his hand on the toman186A vessel containing half a log(a hemina, half a sextarius) of wine. Sine the room was dark he held that the presence of a human in the room would not deter a snake from drinking the wine. Babli 30a.. They lit the light and found a snakelet like a hair curled around it. He said to it, evil one, was I not careful about you? Rebbi Immi said, one has to be careful with what the creatures are careful with: It is forbidden to put coins in one’s mouth, a bread under the armpit, a dish under one’s bed, and to stick a knife187Store a knife there. in an etrog, or a knife into a radish. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, all sweat that exudes from a human is deadly poison except the sweat of the face. Rebbi Yannai said, if you bit something off, you bit off soot. If you lose, you lose a pearl188If you take chances with your health you may lose it.. If anybody asked Rebbi Jonathan he told him: Am I the guarantor of your life? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if you sold yourself for the games189Latin ludi; as a gladiator., you would sell yourself for an excessive price; but here for a very cheap price. Rebbi Assi190This is the Babli’s name of R. Yasa who later is quoted with his Galilean name. Note also in the first part Babylonian הנאה for Galilean הנייה., Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, it should be sold entirely to a Gentile except the value of the libation wine contained in it191This is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s opinion in Mishnah 5:13, opposed by the anonymous majority which declares the entire cistern as forbidden for usufruct. The Babli (74a) agrees that practice has to follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Undetermined wine192Wine about whose previous use nothing is known. of a Gentile is forbidden193In this sentence, “forbidden” means “forbidden for usufruct”. but does not make impure. If he deposited it194Wines produced by Jews if handled by Gentiles are permitted to drink only if they are guarded by an inner seal and an outer seal which make it practically impossible for the Gentile to get to the wine without being detected. If there is no double seal, the wine becomes forbidden to drink. The problem then is to determine when Jewish wine handled by a Gentile or in the custody of a Gentile is permitted for usufruct. with him it is forbidden for drinking but permitted for usufruct. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, how? If he segregated it? He told him, if he deposited it195In the first case, it was specified that the Jew’s closed wine amphora has to be kept at a specified place, with the Jew being able to inspect the place and see that the condition was kept. In the second case the amphora is to be kept by the Gentile in his wine cellar, not separate from his own wine amphoras.. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are three kinds of wine. If he saw the Gentile pouring a libation, it is certainly pagan worship and induces severe impurity like a reptile196In rabbinic teaching in many aspects pagan worship induces impurity much more severe than that of a dead reptile, cf. Mishnah 3:13, Šabbat 9:1. In the Babli, 30b/31a, the formulation is more correctly “severe impurity”..Gentiles’ undetermined wine is forbidden but does not cause impurity. If he deposited with him193In this sentence, “forbidden” means “forbidden for usufruct”. with one seal it is forbidden to drink194Wines produced by Jews if handled by Gentiles are permitted to drink only if they are guarded by an inner seal and an outer seal which make it practically impossible for the Gentile to get to the wine without being detected. If there is no double seal, the wine becomes forbidden to drink. The problem then is to determine when Jewish wine handled by a Gentile or in the custody of a Gentile is permitted for usufruct. and permitted for usufruct. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: See what he said! He only said with a seal. Therefore without a seal it is forbidden for drinking and usufruct. Rebbi Eleazar instructed: if it was segregated; Rebbi Ze‘ira enjoyed it197Since R. Eleazar confirmed that he was correct in his question to R. Yasa, against R. Yasa. Since R. Eleazar died before R. Joḥanan, the entire discussion must be dated to the generation after R. Joḥanan, trying to understand the latter’s teachings.. There, we have stated198Mishnah Demay 3:4. Demay is produce bought from a Jew who is suspected of not following rabbinic rules. He is presumed to have given heave, which is a small amount and the violation of whose prohibition is clearly a biblical deadly sin, but is suspected of neglecting all other rules (cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay). The anonymous majority holds that Gentile produce in the Land of Israel is free from the rules of heave and tithes. (For the opinion of R. Simeon, cf. Demay 3:4 Note 91). Ṭevel is Jewish produce from which no heave or tithes have been taken, forbidden for any Jew after storage.: “With a Gentile, it is like his produce. Rebbi Simeon says, it is demay.” Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Mani: Does it mean, really like his produce? Freeing what would be ṭevel at another place? He said to him, for all that is in it. Rebbi Ḥanina was uselessly opposing him199The paragraph has a parallel in Demay3:4, Notes 104–107. In the opinion of the anonymous Tanna, since the obligation of ṭevel starts only after storage, initial storage by a Gentile removes the obligation completely.Since R. Mani (Mana I) was an Amora of the first generation, the name has to be Ḥanina in both occurrences unless one reads Mana (II) and Ḥanania in all occurrences here and the next paragraph..The placing of the quote here can only be understood with the help of the Babli (31a). In the preceding paragraph it was established that the Jew’s wine stored with the Gentile under certain conditions remains permitted for usufruct. Then the question is why wine does not follow the rules of produce, that if stored by the Gentile it follows the rules of Gentile produce. While for grain this implies release from the obligations of heave and tithes, for wine it should imply prohibition of all usufruct. The answer is given in the next paragraph (having no parallel in the Babli) that the person who frees grain from heave and tithes forbids wine stored with the Gentile for usufruct.. If he deposited with him with a seal200A barrel or bottle of wine, deposited with a Gentile without being held at a separate place. As noted earlier, it remains permitted as a drink for Jews only if it is secured by a double seal. The question remains about its status if it is secured only by a single seal which makes it unlikely but not impossible for the Gentile to access the wine.. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one says, prohibited201R. Mana.., and one says, permitted. Where do they disagree? For usufruct. But for drinking it is forbidden. Rav said, ḥbyt is forbidden, ḥmpg202Mnemonic marks composed of initial letters of the items to be remembered; pronounced ḥavit and ḥampag. Babli 39a/b. is permitted. A piece of fish without distinguishing mark203If it is not directly visible that it is a piece of a fish with fins and scales, permitted as food., meat, wine, and dark blue color204Woolen threads for use in the ṣiṣit, which by tradition must be dyed with the blood of a marine snail which can easily be counterfeit by (much cheaper) indigo, and therefore needs certification. (In modern Hebrew תכלת is light blue but classically very dark blue.), are forbidden with a single seal; assa foetida205A medical concoction on vegetal basis but for which (forbidden) wine might have been used., fish sauce206Latin muries; this also might have been made with wine, even though using only salt and water is cheaper., bread, and cheese, are permitted with a single seal. Rebbi Yudan said, the reason of Rav is that anything which is forbidden in itself is forbidden with a single seal, if because of admixture it is permitted with a single seal. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everything is permitted with a single seal except wine207Babli 31a.. “And Hadrianic pottery.” 208The origin of this text is in ‘Orlah 3:2, Notes 64–76, since in the text “here” means ‘Orlah and “there” Avodah zarah. Nevertheless the order of sentences is too different and the text here cannot be considered as simply a copy of the text there. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah209Probably this should read: Ze`iri in the name of Rav Jeremiah.: does practice follow Rebbi Meïr? As it was stated210Cf. Tosephta 4:8. Since the majority opposes R. Meïr, it is difficult to understand why the Mishnah should support a minority opinion as practice., “Hadrianic pottery is prohibited and its prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr211In the editio princeps: R. Eliezer., but the Sages say, its prohibition is not of usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: what is the status of the cloth about which we stated here212This shows that the paragraph belongs to ‘Orlah, the treatise about the prohibition to use the fruits of a tree in the first three years of its growth. Mishnah ‘Orlah3:1 states: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shell shall be burned.” R. Jeremiah asks, why do the Sages hold that libation wine absorbed in pottery is not forbidden for usufruct but dye from ‘orlah shells (e. g. walnut shells) absorbed in cloth make the entire cloth forbidden for usufruct?? He was offended by this and told him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible. May one use it to support the legs of a couch213They used to put the legs of the couch in water containers to shield the sleeper from snakes and other crawling animals.? Rebbi Eleazar says it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan says it is forbidden214In ‘Orlah, the attributions are switched. The Babli 32a cannot decide between the two traditions.. “And heart-removed skins.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel215In the Babli 32b this is a tradition of Samuel. R. Jeremiah here is the first generation Babylonian.. How does he do it? He tears its heart out from the living animal for pagan worship. How does one know216Which skins were used in pagan ceremonies and are forbidden?? Rebbi Ḥuna said, if it is torn out from the living animal it rebounds and becomes circular; after slaughter it becomes stretched. Rebbi Yose said, one can infer from this that if he slaughtered one sign, even though one says that nothing living can become prohibited, here it becomes prohibited217Even an animal which was worshipped as a divinity is not forbidden for usufruct (it is forbidden as a sacrifice.) If in an act of pagan worship only the windpipe of an animal is cut but not the esophagus and the carotid arteries, the animal is not immediately killed. But since it is for pagan worship it is not less than tearing the heart out from a living animal which makes the entire carcass forbidden for usufruct.. “Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, to exclude the statement of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer says that the thoughts of a Non-Jew are about pagan worship218Mishnah Ḥulin 2:7. He holds that even if a Jew correctly slaughters an animal for a Gentile the meat is forbidden since the Gentile owner in his mind dedicates the slaughter to his god. Practice follows R. Yose who holds that only the slaughterer’s intentions have any influence on the process of slaughtering. Babli 32b.. “But what leaves is forbidden.” Rebbi Abinna in the name of Rav Jeremiah: When he introduced it inside the lattice railing219Greek κιγκλίς, mostly used in the plural Greek κιγκλίδες, Latin cancelli, “lattice gates” (of Temples, eic.) Babli 51b.. But if he did not introduce it inside the lattice railing it is permitted. That is about a pagan Temple which has a lattice railing. But if a pagan Temple has no lattice railing, the entire building is considered lattice railing. “Those who go in220This text, בתרפות, is otherwise found only in Mishnah texts of the Maimonides tradition. It seems preferable to the common text לתרפות. ugliness.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, θόρυβος221“Tumult.” The reference is to pagan processions.. One brings a large idol to a small idol. Some state תרפות.222There seems a sentence to be missing, “some state תרבות”. This is a word תַּרְבּוּת both in biblical Hebrew, “brood” (Num. 32:14), as also in rabbinic, “culture”. For תרפות compare Greek τράπεζα “table” including table dedicated to divinities with offerings of food (E. G.). He who says תרפות, idols223A word derived from a root תרפ used either for household gods or dolls (1S. 13,16). Arabic ترف “to live the good life”.. He who says 224To be vocalized תֹרֻבוֹתֿ.תרבות, θόρυβος. “But those who return are permitted.225A quote from the Mishnah in all versions except the Yerushalmi separate Mishnah.” Rebbi Abinnas in the name of Rav Jeremiah: If their returning is not like their going. But if their returning is like their going, also those returning are forbidden.

MISHNAH: Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs226Which were not thoroughly cleansed to remove all traces of use for Gentile wine. containing an Israel’s wine are forbidden and their prohibition is one of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that their prohibition is not one of usufruct227The wine may be used for trade; it is forbidden for Jews to drink.. HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs,” etc. 228Tosephta 4:10; Babli 33a.“Rough Gentile wine skins229The interior surface is leather only; it was not smoothened by tar. are permitted; tarred ones are forbidden. If a Gentile made it and insulated230It is difficult to see how the scribe could have written דובבן for זופתן “tarred them” in the other sources; it may be better to accept the word as it stands and read it as ذبّب “to protect, defend something”, to protect the skin against being penetrated by the wine. it while a Jew was watching, one may fill it with wine without worry.” Should one not be afraid that possibly he made a libation? He will not usually make a libation in repugnant circumstances231Even if the pitch is diluted with vinegar when applied to the skin, the bad smell does not invite making a libation. One assumes that the Jew has provided the vinegar which was made from kosher wine.. Then even if no Jew was watching? I say, maybe he switched232Then one has no control over the vinegar which was used.. 228Tosephta 4:10; Babli 33a.“Gentile jugs, new ones are permitted even tarred; old are forbidden even if not tarred.” Here you say tarred are permitted and there you say tarred are prohibited. Rebbi Abbahu said, I investigated tarring of jugs; they do not use vinegar while tarring233There is no reason to forbid new jugs.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: If somebody puts wine which was forbidden to drink but permitted to use into jugs, the jugs become like the wine234It cannot be exactly like the wine since one cannot drink the solid jug. But it means that the jug is permitted for usufruct but will make any wine which touches its inside forbidden to drink.. If he removed it and put new wine235Kosher wine. into them, the wine becomes like the jugs236Forbidden to drink but permitted for usufruct.. If he removed it and put new wine235Kosher wine. into them, the wine is forbidden but the jugs permitted237The first wine was forbidden. If the jug was filled twice with kosher wine, it has been cleansed from the first contamination; the third time the kosher wine remains kosher.. Why “forbidden to drink but permitted to use”? Because of Rebbi Meïr who said, forbidden to drink and for use238He will reject this way of cleansing the jug.. Rebbi Abba said, when Rebbi Aqiba went to the tar workers, they came and asked him, how does one purify Gentiles’ jugs? From the following I taught them, since they are permitted if not tarred, if they were tarred but the pitch was shaved off not so much more? But when I came to my colleagues they told me that they are absorbing because of the pitch239They hold that wine absorbed in earthenware which had been tarred will not be removed even if the tar was removed and the vessel cleansed with water for three days as explained at the end of the Halakhah.. 228,Tosephta 4:10; Babli 33a.240A very different version in the Babli, 33a, bottom.“If the Gentile filled it with water, the Jew fills it with water; then he fills it with wine without worry. It the Gentile filled it with fish fluid241צִיר is any fluid obtained by squeezing something, whether fruit, meat, or in this case fish. Muries is a sauce in which pieces of fish are preserved. or fish sauce206Latin muries; this also might have been made with wine, even though using only salt and water is cheaper. the Jew may fill it with wine242The smell of the fish will obliterate any taste that might have remained of the Gentile’s wine.. If the Gentile filled it with wine, the Jew fills it with fish fluid or fish sauce, then he fills it with wine without worry.” Rebbi Joḥanan went to meet243Greek ἀπαντάω “to meet” with Atamaic prefix ל. Rebbi Yudan the Prince at Acco. They came and asked him, how does one purify jugs? He said, from the following I taught them, since after the Gentile filled it with fish fluid or fish sauce the Jew fills it with wine244This is the quote from the previous Tosephta. Of R. Joḥanan’s argument there exist two versions, one by R. Yasa (reported in the Babli 33b), the other by R. Ḥiyya bar Abba.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he puts them into the fire not so much more? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he strips off the tarring245By burning of the tar. not so much more? Do they stand this? If they stand it, they stand246Both R. Yasa and R. Ḥiyya require that the earthenware jug be treated with fire; either fired in its entirety or fire applied to the tar lining. It is agreed that there is a risk that the vessel will burst in the fire, but if it withstands the process it may be used to store Jewish wine.. Untarred jugs247Which had been used by Gentiles., Rebbi Assi190This is the Babli’s name of R. Yasa who later is quoted with his Galilean name. Note also in the first part Babylonian הנאה for Galilean הנייה. said, they are forbidden248They cannot be cleansed to become usable., Rebbi Immi said, they are permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi questioned: do we say that a tankard does not absorb249Both R. Assi and Rav Sheshet question the position of R. Immi.? Rebbi Abba said, Rav Sheshet asked, could we say that a vessel for urine does not absorb? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One fills Gentiles’ jugs with water three days from time to time250One fills the vessel with water, lets it stand for 24 hours, pours the old water out and refills with new, and repeats twice.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi190This is the Babli’s name of R. Yasa who later is quoted with his Galilean name. Note also in the first part Babylonian הנאה for Galilean הנייה. asked, does one do this? Rebbi Yose from Malḥa brought a case before Rebbi Mana. He told him, that is what happened; he answered that it is permitted. Is that to start? He told him, it is forbidden251The method is a short-cut which cannot be used generally; if people used it without asking one cannot prohibit the vessels cleansed in this way.. Rebbi Jeremiah went to Goblana; he instructed about large cups252Latin patera“flat dish or saucer; libation bowl” or Greek ποτήριον (cup, receptacle for offerings in temples; cup in the Eucharist) (Kohut). that one fills them with water three days from time to time253He sees nothing wrong with the method and recommends it publicly. He is quoted in the Babli, 33a, in the same sense and ascribes the ruling to R. Immi.. An Aramean’s254A Non-Jew, not necessarily a pagan; cf. Chapter 1, Note 177. leather bag split; the Jew received it into his255The Aramean’s wine-skin started leaking; a Jew saved his wine by receiving it into his own wine-skin. The Gentile’s wine certainly is forbidden to the Jew; the question is how the Jew can regain the use of his skin after the wine was transferred to the Gentile’s vessel, without ruining the vessel by using it for fish sauce.. The case came before the rabbis who said, one fills them with water three days from time to time256Following R. Jeremiah, against R. Yasa (Assi).. Rebbi Yasa257In the entire Halakhah he opposes cleansing Gentile wine vessels for use by Jews. went to Tyre. He saw them258Gentile workers. tarring small leather bags and Jews bought them. He asked, who permitted you? They asked Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Mani259The earlier authorities all forbid refurbishing wine skins and jugs; the later generations do permit it., who prohibited it.

MISHNAH: 260In the Mishnah this text follows Mishnah 5 which belongs to Halakhah 6. The sequence of the Halakhah also is the one in the Babli and Maimonides’s Mishnah Commentary. Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins261Which remain after the production of wine. are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, moist they are forbidden, dry permitted. HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins,” etc. Rav Sheshet in the name of Rav: Moist they are forbidden even for usufruct; dry they are permitted even to eat262In the Babli, 34a, ascribed to the Galilean R. Joḥanan.. But did we not state263Mishnah 4:8., “it does not become libation wine until it descends into the cistern264Grape juice pressed out of grapes does not become forbidden before it is collected in a vat below the wine press. Since kernels and skins are kept in the press they should not become forbidden.”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Judah: The Mishnah is about one who lowers them into the cistern265The only skins forbidden are those put in the fermenting wine to give it red color.. There we have stated:266Mishnah Kelim9:5. “And so it is with new solid matter of olives; but old one is pure.267If the solid remnants in the olive press which remain after the production of oil are impure, they impart impurity only as long as they are somewhat moist. Once they are stone dry they do no longer impart impurity to clay vessels.” What is new? Within twelve months. Old, after twelve months268The same is true for grape skins used for the production of Gentile wine. Once they are completely dry, having dried out for a full 12 months, they are forbidden no longer; Babli 34a (attributed there to Samuel)..

MISHNAH: Fish sauce206Latin muries; this also might have been made with wine, even though using only salt and water is cheaper., cheese269The reasons for prohibiting Gentile cheese will be discussed in the next Halakhot., and theriac270Greek θηριακή, scil., φάρμακα “medicines made from poisonous beasts (θηρίον)”. It is possible however that ותרײקי is an error for בתנײקי “Bithynian”, which in the Mishnah in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. characterizes the kind of cheese which if made by Gentiles is forbidden for usufruct; cf. Note 431. of Gentiles are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, theitr prohibition is not of usufruct. HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.271From here on, there exists a Genizah text (ג) which differs from the Leiden text mainly in its spelling. The origin of the entire Halakhah is Terumot11:1 (ת, Notes 11–23). However, the first paragraph is a reformulation and explanation of that text as noted by S. Lieberman (Tosefta kiFshutah Terumot p. 454). The second paragraph also belongs to Terumot2:5 (תּ, Notes 118–119).The quote refers to a baraita similar to Tosephta Terumot9:6. According to Rebbi one puts wine into muries to improve its taste. This is a legitimate use of wine as food; therefore the Cohen may use his heave wine, sanctified food which has to be consumed in purity as a religious duty, to improve his muries. On the other hand, since the improved taste is noticeable, the entire muries now must be eaten under the rules of heave.R. Eleazar holds that wine is used in muries only to clean it from contaminations. To use heave wine for this purpose is sinful since it destroys sanctified drink. But if heave wine was used in this illegitimate way, it was destroyed and therefore lost its sanctity. The muries is profane and may be eaten by lay people in impurity.“Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden272Since the amount of any forbidden wine left in the sauce would be insignificant. If the trace of heave wine is permitted to impure laymen, should not a trace of Gentile wine be permitted to everybody?? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles273Whose general prohibition is discussed in Halakhah 9.. But did not [Rebbi Yose]274Added from ג and the Terumot texts. state: “From a professional275This is the reading of the Leiden ms., Babli 34b, and Tosephta Terumot 4:13. The Leiden ms. in Terumot reads המין “trustworthy”, which in editio princeps became an unintelligible חמין “hot”. The reading of ג, אמון may be read either as אָמוֹן “craftsman” with the Leiden ms. here or אֵמוּן “trustworthiness” with the text in Terumot. it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked276Since otherwise it still would be forbidden as Gentile cooking even if one was sure that no wine was used in its production.? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship277In industrial production a Gentile might use wine of which a libation was made.. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted278Since usufruct of pagan wine is forbidden, the rules of declaring an amount as insignificant do not apply; the most minute amount makes the entire product forbidden whereas less than ½% of heave in food leaves it permitted for everybody.. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him279In modern terms, if the muries carries a rabbinic certification that no wine was used in its production.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar. One says because he diminishes its volume, the other says because he reduces the number of drinkers280This refers to Mishnah Terumot 11:1: “One may not cook heave wine because he diminishes its volume; R. Jehudah permits since he improves it.” But some people do not want to drink alcohol-free cooked wine. The problem really is whether the vintner is permitted to cook his wine before he gave heave since (a) with the diminution in volume of the wine he diminishes the volume of heave to be taken and (b) not every Cohen may be willing to accept cooked heave wine.. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, it was not inverted, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses281They were forbidden in Mishnah 6 for all usufruct without any obvious reason.? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver282The rennet is taken from the stomach contents of cattle killed by Gentiles and therefore automatically have the status of cadavers. Since the rennet causes the milk to curdle, its addition cannot be said to be insignificant. Therefore one understands that the cheeses are forbidden as food. Since the rennet is produced from an animal and cheese (including kosher cheese made by Jews) is made by cooking milk with rennet, it could be forbidden for all usufruct as meat cooked in milk following R. Simeon ben Ioḥai (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Masekhta deKaspa20).. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering283An elevation offering is burned completely on the altar. The stomach contents (and the contents of its intestines) are not burned; the innards have to be washed before being put on the altar (Lev. 1:9). Eating from a cadaver is a simple infraction which requires no sacrifice; eating from an animal dedicated as elevation sacrifice is both an infraction and larceny requiring a sacrifice. more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw284The Cohen may eat the stomach contents raw since they are considered excrement; the rennet therefore cannot be considered meat and the Gentile’s cheese should be permitted even as food! For the expression “to burn” for “to slurp” see Note 321.; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct285While the previous statement is essentially correct there is a (customary or rabbinic) rule that it would not be decorous to do so; one refrains from using any part of the animal (except the hide given to the priests, Lev. 7:8) as a practical rule. but does not commit larceny286As a rule of biblical law. Therefore Gentiles’ cheese could at most be rabbinically forbidden..He303R. Joshua. gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He304R. Ismael. retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct289Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.? He303R. Joshua. deflected him to an other subject305As the Babli explains, since it was a new purely rabbinic restriction introduced after the destruction of the Temple, he did not want to disclose the reason. and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine306Cant. 1:2. Since the Song is read as a dialogue between God (m.) and Israel (f.), the theological interpretation depends on the vocalization which was not directly expressible before the invention of vowel signs. The interpretation given in the Halakhah requires the identification of דּוֹדִים as “friends, lovers” rather than “friendship, love.”? He304R. Ismael. told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He303R. Joshua. answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils307Cant. 1:3. As in most cases, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted. The verse ends: therefore girls love you. Since the Song of Songs clearly celebrates heterosexual love, the speaker must be a female addressing a male.The following interpretation of the Mishnah follows S. Naeh [שלמה נאה, טובים דודיך מיין, מבט חדש על משנת ע״ז ב:ה; מחקרים בתלמוד ובמדרש, ספר זכרון לתירצה ליפשיץ, י-ם 2005 ע' 434-411.]. There are two problems. What is the relationship of the Mishnah 7 and the first part of Mishnah 8 to the second part of Mishnah 8? Also the discussion in Mishnah 8 does not seem to make sense. Since Cant. 1:2 starts: May he kiss me with kisses of his mouth, it should be clear that the speaker is the female. Why should R. Ismael, who everywhere else requires that a verse be interpreted according to its plain sense, suddenly switch speakers in middle sentence? Why does R. Joshua refer to 1:3, when a referral to 1:2 would be more appropriate? The unvocalized text of 1:2–3 has a chiastic structure: It starts clearly with the masculine, has a middle section which could be read in the masculine or the feminine, and ends again with the masculine.R. Ismael proves convincingly that there is no biblical basis for the prohibition of Gentile cheese; it is purely rabbinical. It can be regarded as a “fence around the law” only with regard to the prohibition of intermarriage, since it is designed to make social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles as difficult as possible. Then the question arises as to the status of the much more important prohibitions oil and wine. The prohibition of oil clearly is rabbinical even though it is mentioned as particularly meritorious in Daniel; no reason could be found in dietary laws to prohibit Gentile cold pressed virgin olive oil. While wine actually used for pagan libations is biblically forbidden, the extension of the prohibition to almost any wine moved in any way by a Gentile, even one adhering to a faith not practicing libations (or even prohibiting the drinking of wine), must be considered rabbinical. Now wine in mentioned in v. 1:2 and oil in v. 1:3. The discussion between Rabbis Ismael and Joshua is about the status of the prohibitions of wine and oil.As mentioned in Note 306, any rabbinic reference to the Song of Songs unquestionably reads sentences put into the mouth of the female as coming from the congregation of Israel (as represented by its rabbinical leaders) and that of the male as referring to God. R. Joshua asks R. Ismael about his opinion about the actual rules referring to Gentile wine. The latter, by putting the reference to wine in the mouth of the male, asserts that the prohibition of Gentile wine essentially is God’s decree, is biblical. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, informs him that the references to wine and oil have equal status; since the prohibition of oil in almost all cases has no pentateuchal basis, the prohibition of wine also in almost all cases is purely rabbinical (Cf. Halakhah 5:4, Note 67).. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because [most]287Added from the Genizah text, necessary for syntactic reasons. calves there288This shows that the Mishnah underlying this Halakhah is not the one given in the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi but the one found in the Babli and Maimonides: R. Meïr declares Bithynian Gentile cheese as forbidden for usufruct. Babli 34b. are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden289Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable290It never was part of the animal and did not become forbidden by its slaughter for idolatry.; excrement is part of its body. 293For this paragraph there exist two additional witnesses, the Leiden ms. in Beṣah1:1 (60a ll. 39–54, ב) and a Genizah text (Yerushalmi Fragments, pp. 156–157, בּ) of the same. The source clearly is the Beṣah text even though the argument is from Avodah zarah and the reference to Beṣah is a side remark.“Gentile’s stomach content” naturally means “stomach content of animal slaughtered by a Gentile.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass294An animal which was not slaughtered following the rules of ritual slaughter. whose flesh therefore is forbidden as meat. nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship295The Beṣah text seems better: Does this (i. e., the prohibition of Gentile rennet) follow R. Eliezer (whom practice does not follow in general) since it treats Gentile rennet as more problematic than the one derived from a carcass? Since here practice is said to follow R. Eliezer, the tradition seems questionable; one has to search for parallel traditions either to confirm or to reject.? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa]296The Babylonian form of the name (in parentheses) has to be deleted in favor of the Galilean form used in the three parallel sources [in brackets]. came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither]297To be added by the unanimous testimony of the other three sources and the later arguments. with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.]298The ms. text (in parentheses) is inconsistent. It has to be replaced by the text of the other three sources [in brackets] which is consistent with R. Joḥanan’s statement in both versions since for dietary laws a “torn” animal has the same status as a carcass.A “torn” animal is one of which a vital organ is impaired or defective, the most common one being tuberculous lesions of the lung. If a cow is known to suffer from a defect which makes it “torn”, its milk is forbidden as drink but as stomach contents it becomes excrement and is no longer forbidden. (Karaites deny the existence of internal ṭerefa and prohibit as torn only the victims of predator attacks as described by the verse, Ex.22:30.) And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside299This now connects the discussion with Mishnah Beṣah1:1 which states that the House of Shammai permit the use on the holiday of an egg laid on that day while the House of Hillel forbid it. The problem is to understand the position of the House of Hillel since the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday (Ex. 12:16). According to the Babli and one opinion in the Yerushalmi the prohibition applies only to eggs laid by chickens raised to produce eggs. Then the mother was not food at the start of the holiday. While the egg is food according to everybody, for the House of Hillel it cannot change its character from non-food to food on the holiday. Then the question is raised why milk which is prohibited as food before being ingested by a ruminant becomes permitted by the animal’s stomach. In this question, the revised ruling in matters of rennet would agree with the stance of the House of Shammai. But the answer is that the two cases cannot be compared; the stomach contents of an animal never were part of the animal and do not have the latter’s status.. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s]300The plural is attested to in the three parallel sources and required by the context. of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua301The parallels unanimously state the name as Jehudah ben Shemu`ai without a rabbinic title. that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents302The latter teaching which permits rennet from animals prohibited as meat is confirmed by a ruling in an actual case.. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. “Because they curdle it,” etc. 309This paragraph and the next are from Berakhot 1:7 (Notes 182-191) and Sanhedrin 11:6 (Notes 54-57); Midrash Cant. 1(18). The Geniza fragment ends here on line 2.The colleagues in the name of Rebbi [Joḥanan]: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are (more pleasant than) [pleasant like] the words of Scripture; your throat is like good wine310Cant.7:10; Babli 35a.. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, for your friends are better than wine311Mishnah Berakhot 1:7.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Bar Pazi: You may know that the words of the Sopherim are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, because if Rebbi Tarphon312Cant. 1:2. did not recite at all he would only have transgressed a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the House of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says, if one breaches a wall he will be bitten by a snake313Eccl. 10:8.. Rebbi Ismael stated: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sopherim all are severe, since we have stated: “He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable.” Rebbi Ḥanina314With the other two sources read: Ḥinena. in the name of Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets since it is written, do not preach, they preach315Micha 2:6.. And it is written,I shall preach to you for wine and liquor316Micha 2:11.. The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two seals317As the text shows this is a scribal error. Read with the other sources פלמנטריןdiplomatarii, persons authorized to use the imperial mail. to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον318Greek “seal”., do not believe him. About the other he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, believe him. So about a prophet is written, he gives you a sign or miracle319Deut. 13:2.. But here it is written, according to the teachings that they will teach you320Deut. 17:11.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because most calves there288This shows that the Mishnah underlying this Halakhah is not the one given in the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi but the one found in the Babli and Maimonides: R. Meïr declares Bithynian Gentile cheese as forbidden for usufruct. Babli 34b. are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters an animal for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden289Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable290It never was part of the animal and did not become forbidden by its slaughter for idolatry.; excrement is part of its body. What means “burns it”? He slurps it321In Midrash Cant. 1(17) גמיע.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in a dirty cup. This implies that one who drinks from a dirty cup neither benefits nor commits larceny322Since he must slurp the contents of the stomach in the Temple it would be a desecration to use a clean Temple vessel for this purpose. A private vessel may not be introduced into the Temple precinct. The priest may use a dirty vessel which nobody else would use for food to eat the disgusting matter.. Why did he not tell him? Because they prohibited it recently and Rebbi Ismael was young323They had to establish the authority of the newly formed Synhedrion at Jabneh; Babli 35a. The story must be dated to the last 20 years of the first Century, after the death of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai (at an unknown date). R. Ismael never appears as member of the Synhedrion.. Rebbi Onias said, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a difficulty: If he wanted to deflect him to another subject324If R. Joshua’s intention only was to deflect R. Ismael’s inquiry there were many other questions to be asked., he should have removed him to the five indeterminate places in the Torah325In the absence of masoretic accents it may be difficult to parse a sentence. In Babli sources, this is called “verses that have no decision,” i. e., where to place the caesura. In our masoretic texts only Ex. 25:34 remains undecided in this sense. Parallel sources are Babli Yoma52a/b, Gen. rabba80(5) (Theodor-Albeck #957/958, Sokoloff Geniza Fragments p. 170), Midrash Cant. 1(18), Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Amaleq1, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai Epstein-Melamed p. 121, Tanḥuma Bešallaḥ26.The list itself is attributed in most sources to Issy ben Jehudah. [A discussion in principle about this subject is found in ש. קוגוט, המקרא בין טעמים לפרשנות, י־ם תשנד; מ. ברויאר, מקראות שאין להם הכרע, לשוננו נח (תשנה) 189־199.], which are the following: “gift, cursed, tomorrow, almond shaped, rise”. Behold if you choose well the gift or the gift if you do not choose well326Gen.4:7. They must have read הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִ֔יב שְׂאֵ֕ת וְאִם֙ לֹא תֵיטִ֔יב but also in the masoretic text הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת there is a stop between תֵּיטִיב֙ and שְׂאֵ֔ת.. For in their rage they killed a man and by their will castrated a cursed ox or cursed be their rage for it is strong327Gen.49:6–7. It is a question whether to read one or two sentences.. Moses said to Joshua . . go fight Amaleq tomorrow or tomorrow I shall stand on top of the hill328Ex. 17:9.. On the candelabra four cups almond shaped or almond shaped their knobs and their flowers329Ex. 25:34..The Eternal said to Moses, you will lie with your fathers and rise or rise will this people and whore330Deut. 31:16.. Rebbi Tanḥuma added the following: Jacob’s sons came from the field when they heard or when they heard the men were offended331Gen. 34:7. Most translations follow the masoretic punctuation in choosing the first alternative but the German translation by Torczyner et al. (Berlin 1934) which opts for the second.. Rebbi La said, there are things about which one kisses the mouth, as it is said, may he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth332This answers R. Ḥama bar Uqba’s question. The verse Cant. 1:2 was chosen because its first part, quoted now, tells R. Ismael to be silent since a person who is kissed on his mouth cannot speak at that time. The first part clearly refers to a male; nevertheless R. Ismael had a point reading the second part as addressing a female since the sentence switches from third to second person, possibly indicating a change of speaker.. Rebbi Isaac said, and me did the Eternal command333Deut. 4:14. Here starts a rather defective Genizah fragment (Ginzberg pp. 276–277.). “Me, and me.” Things were said to me that were said to you. And things were said to me alone334Not everything has to be told to everybody.. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalfuta, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Lambs for your clothing; the price of a field are rams. It is written “suppressings336Identifying שׁ and שׂ for the homily.”. How is this? If the students are young, suppress before them the secrets of the Torah. If they grew and became like rams, reveal to them the secrets of the Torah. This lends support to what Rebbi Simoen ben Ioḥai stated: And these are the laws which you shall put before them. Just as this putting is not revealed to everybody The laws in Ex. 21–22 are not to be told to Gentiles nor applied to their suits. so you do have permission to immerse yourself in words of the Torah only before legitimate people.

MISHNAH: The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct: Milk which the Gentile milked when no Jew was seeing him, bread, their oil339Olive oil., and anything preserved by cooking340Even if the Gentile cooked with the Jew’s vessels under his control, as long as no Jew participated in the cooking process.. Rebbi and his court permitted oil. Preserves in which usually wine is used341Preserves made with spices without cooking, such as Sauerkraut, where wine might have been added. The wine is forbidden but there is no danger that it might have been used for pagan rituals., and vinegar342Vinegar is not wine, but vinegar made from grapes is forbidden., and pieces of triton343The Latin name of a kind of sea fish mentioned by Pliny; in Greek it is the name of sea gods. Since the fish is cut in little pieces one cannot ascertain that no forbidden fish (without fins and scales) was used., and fish sauce344Fluid obtained by squeezing fish. not containing a whole fish, and hallec345“Fish sauce (garum) prepared from small fish” (Lewis and Short’s Latin Dictionary)., and a lump of asa foetida205A medical concoction on vegetal basis but for which (forbidden) wine might have been used., and salqonarit salt346Musaphia reads סלקונדית and explains as sal conditum, spiced salt (mentioned by Pliny xxxi,87 and in Diocletian’s price edict. A recipe is given by Apicius.) Kohut proposes salcenarium Medieval Latin “used for pickling”. Also consider sal candidum “white salt” (E. G.).; these are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct: HALAKHAH: “The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden,” etc. 347Parallels to these two paragraphs are in Terumot 8:5 (Notes 135–142) and Šabbat 1:(3d line 2). The text in Terumot is a copy of the text in Šabbat; the text here is somewhat different. Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Rebbi Abba (son of) [in the name of]348The text of the Leiden ms. in parentheses has to be corrected by the text of ג in brackets and the parallels. Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering158In both Talmudim it is assumed that a snake will drink from uncovered unattended fluids and in the process poison the drink for humans. Then the drink cannot be used, neither can it be sold since this would be “putting a stone in the path of a blind person.” This makes uncovered unattended wine almost as forbidden as wine used for pagan practices.. Let him make cheese! Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison given between the holes349One seems to assume that the poison will be separated out in the process of solidification making hard cheese. But if the cheese has holes the poison will accumulate there and there may be small holes not directly visible.. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net350Babli 30b.. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and were [not]350aIn brackets is the addition of ג. disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah the barrels of the great assembly351The half-yearly reunion of all members of the Academy. were uncovered. The first ones drank and were not disabled. The second ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. It was stated thus352Tosephta Terumot 7:17.: “If a watermelon was pecked and ten people ate from it or wine was uncovered and ten people drank from it, it is forbidden to eat or drink after them; I say that there is sinking poison.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, why is Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from forbidden animals353Babli 35b. This is the only explanation given in the Babli where also it is noted that making cheese from the milk does not solve the problem.. It was stated so354Tosephta 4:11; Babli 30b.: “There is nothing to worry if the Jew sits with the herd while the Gentile milks and brings to him.” 355There are three parallels to this text, in Ševi`it 8:5 (Notes 57–62), Ma`aser Šeni 3:1 (Notes 2–3, מ), and Šabbat1 (3c l. 55, ש). The Genizah text here, and the texts in Ma`aser Šeni and Šabbat are clearly copies of one and the same original; the text in Ševi`it is slightly different in wording but identical in meaning. Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan. Bread is of the practices of obfuscation. [Rebbi Yose said, so I asked before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: What means “of the practices of obfuscation?]356Added from the three identical texts; most of the paragraph is taken up by the questions of R. Yose and R. Mana; only at the end the correct answer is spelled out.The practice of obfuscation is that the rabbis have to justify the popular disregard of their prohibition. Do I say, at a place where Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it? Or at a place where Jewish bread is not available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted and they obfuscated about it and forbade it? Rebbi Mana said, is there any obfuscation for prohibition357As shown in the Mishnah, rabbinic prohibitions do not need justification, only permissions which are inconsistent with general prohibition, such as to permit bread while prohibiting all other kinds of Gentile cooking.? But is bread not like cooking of Gentiles? Are we saying: At a place where no Jewish cooking is available it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted358The texts in Ševi`it, Ma`aser Šeni, and Šabbat add: “and they obfuscated about it and forbade it.” But the illegible space in ג is not sufficient for this addition; one has to assume that it never was in the Avodah zarah text.? But it must be the following: At a place where Jewish bread is not available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it because of the necessities of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Following the words of him who was permitting, but only from the store359Greek πρατήρ “seller”. Lieberman reads πωλητήριον “retail store”, Kohut Latin panetarius “bread merchant”.; but one does not do this360But eats also privately baked Gentile bread; forbidden in the Babli 35b.. 361Šabbat 1 (3c line 65). The Geniza fragment (ג) ends at the mention of Rav. Another fragment, in much better shape, edited by J. N. Epstein [Tarbiz 3(1932) 15-26 (G)] starts at the second mention of Deut. 2:28. They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, etc362Deut.2:28. In the Babli, 37b, a statement of R. Joḥanan. The Babli (38a) negates a biblical base for the prohibition of Gentile cooking.. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans363The list also appears in Tosephta 4:11. In the Babli 38b the word is explained as meaning either φάσηλος or שעועית, both meaning “bean”., פנקריסין365The word is unexplained. In the Babli, loc. cit., and similarly in the Tosephta, it appears asקפריסין “capers”. and קובטיות366In the Babli קפלוטות “leeks”. In Tosephta קפטאות, קפאטיות. N. Brüll (Jahrbücher für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 5) proposes copta قُباط “fig preserve”. This agrees well with the quote in the Babli since, as stated later also here, all preserves made from fruit which also is eaten raw are not under the prohibition of Gentile cooking. The only problem is that the next sentence implies that the word describes a dried fruit or vegetable which can be returned more or less to its original state but soaking., roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. But roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav367Babli 38a, 59a; Šabbat51a, Bava qamma11a, Yebamot12b. Also Yerushalmi Nedarim6:1 (39c l. 44).: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking368The Šabbat text adds: And it may be used for eruv tavšilin (a symbolic act which turns a common courtyard or a dead-end alley into a private domain, or which lets one prepare cooked food for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday); this formulation may be taken from the end of the Halakhah. (With bread it is in the category of Gentile cooking369This restriction is found neither in the Šabbat text nor the Babli. It also contradicts the insertion in the Šabbat text (Note 368). Either it is spurious or the text here disagrees with the text there..) How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise trade (ply him)370Reading of the corrector of L. The scribe wrote as in the Šabbat text and G. with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When a superior371A superior Roman judge; cf. Introduction to Tractate Neziqin p. 4, remark about R. Jonathan. came to [his]372Readings of G and the Šabbat text. town, he sent him an honor gift, that if a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him. 373The following also is in Šabbat I, 3d line 16 ff., ש. While the sentence order there differs from here, the fact that G while following the sentence order of L very often follows the formulation of ש indicates that the two texts are essentially the same. Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it. Daniel was careful, etc374Dan. 1:8. The verse does not seem to mention olive oil. As the Babli explains (36a), the argument is from the continuation, that he would not defile himself by the king’s solid food and the wine of his drinks, where the plural drinks refers both to wine (whose prohibition is generally accepted) and oil (where Daniel’s action rather is an act of personal piety.) In any case, the prohibition of Gentile olive oil never was considered to have any biblical basis.. And who permitted it? Rebbi permitted it and his court375Babli36a.. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents376Giṭtin7:3, Notes 49–64. The essence of the controversy is whether a divorce document subject to a certain condition is only valid after the condition has been satisfied or is valid immediately but not actionable unless the condition be satisfied. The simplest example is that of a sick childless man who wants to shield his wife from levirate marriage (or prevent her from marrying his brother) by writing a bill of divorce valid if he should die from his disease. If he stipulates that divorce be “from today if I shall die”, the divorce is unquestionably valid. If he omits “from today” then for Rebbi it is valid, for the rabbis it is invalid since a dead person cannot divorce., oil, and a sole377Niddah3:4, Notes 93–98. The “sole” is the result of a miscarriage where no features are recognizable in the aborted fetus. For the rabbis, the woman is subject to all disabilities of a woman who gave birth to a male and a female (Lev. 12:1–8), for Rebbi and his court only if human features were recognizable.. They called him “the court which permitted oil.378In the other two sources: Should he not be called “a permissive court” (a pejorative term) since …“” Any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. 379These two sentences really do not belong here; they are copied from the text in Giṭtin(Note 54) which thereby is shown to be the source of the preceding sentences, and refer to Mishnah Giṭtin7:10 about a man who gave his wife a bill of divorce valid if he should not return within 12 months, and notice was received of his death. Does she have to wait the full 12 months or not? May she be allowed to remarry? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, she is allowed to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, she is forbidden to remarry. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed about it380In ש, this immediately follows the statement that Daniel forbade Gentile oil and invalidates it. It is not clear what danger there was in getting Gentile oil but since both Talmudim declare the prohibition of Gentile oil to be of the 18 prohibitions promulgated in the run-up to the first revolt against the Romans (Šabbat I, 3c l.37, Babli 17b) it must refer to the situation there. The exact meaning of “King’s mountain” as a geographical entity has not been determined.. Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Simlai381In the Babli and ש, as well as in the quote from the Yerushalmi in Tosaphot 36a, s.v. אשר, R. Simlai. Babli 37a. This dates “R. Jehudah” here as R. Jehudah II. For “Southerner” the Babli has “from Lydda”, which is taken as a pejorative term. the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel said, true382In the two other sources, probably correctly, “Samuel accepted this and ate.”! Rav did not accept on himself to eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder383Cf. Sanhedrin8:6, Note 64.. He answered him, when I still was there384When Rav was studying in Galilee under Rebbi (Jehudah I) and R. Ḥiyya the Elder. I knew who complained about it, Simlai the Southerner. He told him385Rav to Samuel. In the Babli. 37a, R. Simlai is described as being critical of the decision to allow Gentile oil., he said it in the name of himself, not in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate386Rav ate in order to sustain the authority of the Patriarchate.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”387Mishnah Idiut1:5.? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict388In the Babli 36a: It is forbidden to promulgate a decree that the majority of the public cannot accept.. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it389Babli 36a. This proves conclusively that the original prohibition of oil was relatively recent and purely rabbinic.. Their roasted egg, Bar Qappara permitted, Ḥizqiah forbade390Babli 38b. The egg is roasted in its shell so that there are no problems of non-kosher admixtures. It is not impossible to eat an egg raw.. So far if it was roasted intentionally. If it was roasted unintentionally? Let us hear from the following: There was a fire in an under-growth of reeds and a swamp of date palms where there were locusts which were roasted. The case came before Rebbi Mana391R. Mana I., who forbade them. Rebbi Abbahu said, because of admixture of impure locusts392Babli 38a.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, and this is of the stringencies of Rav. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them393He used his office as overseer of Jewish markets to enforce strict rabbinic rules.. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and it dropped off394As recognized by J. N. Epstein, Aramaicאתֿר is Af`el of Aramaicנתֿר Hebrew נשר. under him. He went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead395This is a case of “meat which had been lost sight of” which must be treated as non-kosher; it cannot be sold as kosher meat. Quoted in Tosaphot Bava meṣi`a24b s. v. אתא.. A man went to wash a piece of meat396The translation is a guess based on the context; the word itself is unexplained. It appears only here and in the exact parallel Šeqalim7:3 (50c l. 47). Sokoloff in his Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic2 accepts also Jastrow’s explanation “an object on which the meat was hung” but this seems to be excluded by the context. in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place397A similar story in the Babli Ḥulin95a–b.. What is the status of their lupines398They cannot be eaten raw; according to Yerushalmi rules cooked lupines should be forbidden as Gentile’s cooking. But Ganiba was a Babylonian and the Babli has a second category of food exempted from the rules: coarse food not eaten in polite society (Babli 38a, rules of the autochthonous academy of Pumbedita.) The paragraph makes clear that this tradition never was accepted in the domain of influence of the Academy of Tiberias.? Rebbi forbids, Ganiba permits. Rebbi said, I am an Elder and he is an Elder. It came to my mind to forbid; it was his opinion to permit. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum went to Tyre and permitted their lupines. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre and found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He returned to Rebbi Joḥanan who asked him, what case came to your hands? He told him, I found that Rebbi Mana had permitted their lupines. He asked him, did you not hit him? He answered, he is an important personality and knows how to sweeten the waters of the Great Sea. He told him399Here ends the second Genizah fragment., no, my son. He knows how to compute the waters; when the waters come together to acclaim their Creator400Cf. Midrash Tehillim on Ps.93:4. they sweeten themselves. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, he starts to speak his disgrace and tells his praise! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a difficult computation; Rebbi Zakkai of Alexandria knows it. He said, if you want, you may learn it from him. What is the rule for their parboiled [food]401Scalding is not boiling; while the food is prepared it is not cooked.? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Immi went with Rebbi Jehudah to the hot springs of Gadara and permitted their parboiled [food]. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, what is the difference between parboiled and lupines? Rebbi Yose said, parboiled is missing action by fire; lupines are not missing action by fire. Ḥawarnas402These two words are unexplained; they can be given sense only by radical emendation. It takes some imagination to define martisa as “hash” (Jastrow) on basis of Arabic رطس “to hit somebody with one’s hand”; it may be somewhat better to rewrite חוורנס as Babylonian הרסנא “sauce made out of ground sardines” (Jastrow) since Palestinian ח often corresponds to Babylonian ה. Also compare Latin arvina “grease, fat,” and moretum, Greek μυρτοτός, a country dish (E. G.). is not forbidden because of Gentile cooking and one may use it for eruv tavšilin368The Šabbat text adds: And it may be used for eruv tavšilin (a symbolic act which turns a common courtyard or a dead-end alley into a private domain, or which lets one prepare cooked food for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday); this formulation may be taken from the end of the Halakhah. Martisa402These two words are unexplained; they can be given sense only by radical emendation. It takes some imagination to define martisa as “hash” (Jastrow) on basis of Arabic رطس “to hit somebody with one’s hand”; it may be somewhat better to rewrite חוורנס as Babylonian הרסנא “sauce made out of ground sardines” (Jastrow) since Palestinian ח often corresponds to Babylonian ה. Also compare Latin arvina “grease, fat,” and moretum, Greek μυρτοτός, a country dish (E. G.). is not forbidden because of Gentile cooking and one may use it for eruv tavšilin. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking and one may use it for eruv tavšilin368The Šabbat text adds: And it may be used for eruv tavšilin (a symbolic act which turns a common courtyard or a dead-end alley into a private domain, or which lets one prepare cooked food for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday); this formulation may be taken from the end of the Halakhah.

MISHNAH: The following are permitted to eat: Milk which a Gentile milked while a Jew saw him, and honey, and broken grapes403Table grapes transported in baskets, not vine grapes transported in barrels. In the first case, juice dripping from broken grape berries is lost. In the second case the juice is collected in the barrel and poured into the wine press; this juice follows all the rules of wine and becomes forbidden by the Gentile’s touch. (even though they drip they do not prepare for impurity.404Any vegetable food cannot become impure as long as it is connected to the ground. After harvest it can become impure once it comes into contact with water (Lev. 11:38). Juice is treated as water in this respect. But the verse reads, if water is poured on vegetables, this is read to imply that contact with water makes vegetables susceptible to impurity only if it was poured intentionally or at least if the wetting was agreeable to the owner (Sifra Šemini Pereq 11). Therefore juice which flows out of table grapes does not prepare for impurity since it is lost, but juice flowing from wine grapes does prepare for impurity since it is not lost and eases the work of wine pressing.) Preserves in which usually wine or vinegar is not used, and uncut triton343The Latin name of a kind of sea fish mentioned by Pliny; in Greek it is the name of sea gods. Since the fish is cut in little pieces one cannot ascertain that no forbidden fish (without fins and scales) was used., and fish sauce containing a whole fish344Fluid obtained by squeezing fish., and a leaf of asa foetida205A medical concoction on vegetal basis but for which (forbidden) wine might have been used., and rolled olives405It seems that the correct reading is that of the Arukh: זיתי קלוסטא המגולגלים and the expression is a double Greek-Hebrew, the olives are “rolled” (or “apt to be rolled”) Greek κυλιστός and Hebrew “rolled”. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary, Lešonenu 37 (1973) pp. 23–25.; Rebbi Yose says, the pitted ones are forbidden406He thinks that standard technology is to soften the olives by vinegar before removing the pits (Tosephta 4:8).. Locusts from the basket are forbidden407One assumes that the store will sprinkle the dead locusts on display with vinegar to keep them looking fresh (Tosephta 4:12)., from storage permitted; similarly for heave408A Cohen, who certainly is Jewish, has a food store and therefore can legally refreshen his locusts with vinegar or wine. If he is suspected of illegally using his heave wine or vinegar, which by biblical decree must be eaten by the Cohen in purity and should not be used commercially, to sprinkle on locusts for sale, he has to be treated the same as a Gentile seller of the same.. HALAKHAH: “The following are permitted for usufruct,409This looks like a misquote from the Mishnah but probably is not since the following statement of R. Eleazar makes sense only if it relates to usufruct, not to food eaten by Jews.” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, about a dish in which usually one does not add wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he added, it is forbidden even for usufruct410Since one refers to dishes produced by Gentiles they are forbidden as Gentile cooking. The only question is whether a Jew may use them as objects of trade. He may do that only if in the standard cook books no addition of wine or vinegar is required. In any case, if it is known that wine or vinegar was added it is forbidden for usufruct. If nothing is known but the standard recipe does not call for wine it is a legitimate object of trade.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Jew and a Gentile put a pot on the fire, the Jew puts it down and the Gentile stirs411The Babli 38b declares that there is no prohibition of Gentile cooking if either the Jew puts it on the fire and the Gentile cooks or the Gentile puts it on the fire and the Jew cooks.. Who puts it back? One would say that the Jew puts it back412Since the Yerushalmi requires that the Jew put the dish on the fire it is obvious that he has to put it back if for some reason the pot was taken off the fire.. Rebbi Benjamin bar Levai said, only if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s413“The trampler”, a famous robber who always was on the run and therefore could eat his meat only rare. “Ben Derosai’s food” is rare, cooked one-third of normal cooking time. food. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food, why does the Jew have to put it back? Even the Gentile may put it back414Any food cooked rare is no longer subject to the rules of Gentile cooking. Babli 38a, Šabbat 20a.. What is alec? Rav said, soltanit415There is no linguistic evidence for translating either sardine or herring. All one has to go on is a remark in the Babli 29a that soltanit is forbidden because it is a small fish caught together with non-kosher fish. Cf. Latin solea “sole” (also the fish).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, alec and cut-up triton follow the same rules. Rebbi Ze`ira, Cahana bar Taḥlifa, Ḥanan bar Abba in the name of Rav: Its mucus is forbidden because of admixture from prohibited fish. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This you say at a place were water is not running. But in running water no impure fish associates with pure fish. The Sea of Genezareth is similar to running water. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only at times when the fish bites. Samuel said, ḥafitha416This kind of fish likewise has not been identified. In Cant. rabba ad 1:4 it is noted that it is a jumping fish. Arabic حٍفث is a large non poisonous snake. one judges according to its shell. If it produces mucus it is permitted, otherwise forbidden. What is uncut triton? Any where heads and spines exist417Babli 40a, opinion of Rav Huna.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that on a ship of the House of Rebbi there were more than 300 amphoras. Rebbi checked them all out and found only one where heads and spines were found. He permitted all of them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi190This is the Babli’s name of R. Yasa who later is quoted with his Galilean name. Note also in the first part Babylonian הנאה for Galilean הנייה. asked, would it not be reasonable that one amphora be permitted but the other amphoras be forbidden? But it was by a pretext.418Since all of the amphoras came from the same source, he had reason to assume that all of them were made by the same rule. 419The following sentences are from Terumot 10:7, Notes 91–94. The common topic are subterfuges to stretch permissions over the reasonable limit. (A sale)420In Terumot one reads “cheeses”, ג for ז, a not infrequent misreading. While the principle of R. Abba bar Zavda refers to public property, here he applied it to loads on a common carrier. This is a subterfuge. was mixed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda who said to him, the property of the public cannot be forbidden. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Isaac asked: Is not Cajus Lycus written on these documents, and you say, by a pretext421Divorce documents can only be signed by Jews. In the diaspora, one must accept also Jewish witnesses with Latin and Greek names; therefore the appearance of foreign names on documents is no reason for attacking the genuineness of a document under any circumstance. This is a subterfuge.? Ulla the leatherworker422Accadic aškapu. stated before Rebbi Dosa, an impure fish has live births, a pure fish lays eggs423Babli 40a, Bekhorot 7b.. He started again and stated, fish intestines and fish innards are eaten only upon certification by an expert424Babli 40a. He told him, change your statement! This one state or that one. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, do not change your statement. They are finished only upon being laid425In the Babli 40a the question is asked by Ulla (ben Ismael) to R. Dositheos of Bire and answered by R. Ze`ira correctly that all lay eggs but some impure fish hatch their eggs in their body (clearly excluding mammals). It is not impossible to read the same meaning into the statement here.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, if one tells you, I salted them, he may be believed426Babli 40b. If he asserts that he checked the fish and they were of the pure kind, he does not have to be an expert. Nathan bar Abba said before Samuel, I know how to distinguish between fetuses of impure fish and fetuses of pure fish. The fetuses of impure fish are spherical, the fetuses of pure fish are elongated427In the Babli, 40a, it is asserted that impure fish eggs are symmetrical ovaloid, pure fish eggs asymmetrical.. He showed him a salpe428Greek σάλπη, Latin salpa, -ae, “stock-fish”.; he asked him, what is its status? He answered, impure. He told him, not only am I aggravated that you said impure of what is pure but at the end you will say pure of what is impure. It was stated: One buys fish intestines and fish innards only upon certification by an expert429Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b.. One buys dark blue wool only upon certification by an expert204,Woolen threads for use in the ṣiṣit, which by tradition must be dyed with the blood of a marine snail which can easily be counterfeit by (much cheaper) indigo, and therefore needs certification. (In modern Hebrew תכלת is light blue but classically very dark blue.)430Babli Menaḥot 42b.. One buys Bithynian431The translation assumes that ותינײקי is a scribal error for בתינײקי “Bithynian”, which in the Mishnah in the Babli (Note 270) characterizes cheese which is forbidden for usufruct if produced by Gentiles. In the Tosephta ed. princeps בית היניקאי, Erfurt ms. ובית הינײקי, Vienna ms. missing. The Vienna text is the only one agreeing with the Mishnah as printed in the Yerushalmi editions. cheese only upon certification by an expert429Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b.. One buys wine in Syria only upon certification by an expert429Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b.. One buys meat without a mark only upon certification by an expert429Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b.. But all one may eat at a person’s who is not an expert without worry429Tosephta 4:13, Babli 39b.. Rebbi Aha, Rebbi Tanḥum in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If one sent asa foetida he is trustworthy432If a person sends a gift to another of a substance whose kosher status might be questionable, the recipient may assume that the gift was kosher, otherwise it would not have been sent without proper warning. Babli 39b.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joṣhua ben Levi: If one sent dark blue wool he is trustworthy. The lad of Levi of Ṣanbar was selling produce433The lad was a slave. The question was whether the buyer of produce may assume that heave and tithes were taken from produce sold by the servant of a person who himself was known to be trustworthy in matters of heave and tithes. Since the slave’s owner would not tolerate untithed produce in his house, one must assume that any produce sold by his slave was tithed. Babli 39a.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The slave of a trustworthy person is trustworthy. Germanus the slave of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince had dark blue wool. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The slave of an expert is like an expert434This is parallel to the previous case. Since R. Jehudah the Prince would not tolerate fake blue wool on his property, one may buy blue wool threads from his slave even if the latter was uneducated.. “And salqonarit salt.” Some Tannaïm state, black one is forbidden but white permitted. But some Tannaïm state, white one is forbidden but black permitted435One of these is R. Meïr, the other R. Jehudah, but Babli 39b and Tosephta 4:12 give contradictory attributions. One has to assume that the editors of the Yerushalmi refrained from attaching names to the traditions since they knew about differing attributions.. He who said black one is forbidden, because one puts a black crawling thing in it. He who said white one is forbidden, because one puts a white crawling thing in it. Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Gamliel, both are forbidden. Rebbi Ḥanania436He is the previously mentioned R. Ḥanania ben Gamliel, Babli 39b. said, we had a neighbor who was mixing it with pig fat. 437In this paragraph one gives example of technical terms used in Mishnaiot which are essentially the same. The list is made to explain the term זֵיתֵי קֻלוּסְקָא הַמְגוּלְגָּלִין which however is somewhat different in combining two expressions which are translations of one another (Note 405). Coverings are the same as protuberances438In Mishnah Ahilut 8:2 it is explained that סְכָכוֹת refers to trees giving shade and פְּרָעוֹת to bushes growing out of a stone wall. Both transmit “tent” impurity.. Veiled is the same as hulled439Mishnah Šabbat 6:6: On a Sabbath, a Jewish woman in Arabia may walk in the public domain veiled and in Persia hulled.. Roofs are the same as covers440Mishnah Kelim 8:9. An oven (furnus) may become impure if according to R. Jehudah it has a roof (στέγη), according to Rabban Gamliel if it has a platform (שְׂפָיוֹת).. Cups are the same as grooves441Mishnah Parah 2:5: Two black hairs growing in the same groove disqualify a red cow; R. Jehudah says in the same cup.. A place under cups is a place for putting down pieces442Mishnah Kelim 22:1: A table or tripod (portable pieces of furniture which may become impure if whole) which were damaged but were covered with a marble top (which cannot become impure) still may become impure if the cover excludes a place for putting there cups (majority opinion) or pieces (R. Jehudah).. Κυλιστόι olives are rolled olives,405It seems that the correct reading is that of the Arukh: זיתי קלוסטא המגולגלים and the expression is a double Greek-Hebrew, the olives are “rolled” (or “apt to be rolled”) Greek κυλιστός and Hebrew “rolled”. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary, Lešonenu 37 (1973) pp. 23–25.. “The pitted are forbidden.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a variety443A kind of olives which can easily be freed of its pits. The name refers to the root שלח I “to strip off”. and they put vinegar on them to be able to remove their pits.

MISHNAH: All statues are prohibited1Prohibited for usufruct. For R. Meïr there are no statues made for artistic value alone. because they are worshipped once a year, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, prohibited are only those in whose hand is a rod2A symbol of command., or a bird3A symbol of having access everywhere., or a globe4A symbol of ruling the earth.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any in whose hand is anything. HALAKHAH: “All statues are prohibited,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because they are worshipped in the great fortification of Rome twice in a Sabbatical period5This is given as R, Meïr’s reason.. Then at a place where they are worshipped they should be forbidden, at a place where they are not worshipped they should be permitted. Rebbi Yose said, since they became forbidden at one place, their kind becomes forbidden anywhere6Babli 40b (following R. Meïr).. Where do we hold7Where is the disagreement between R. Meïr and the rabbis?? If it is certain that they are of kings8Since Augustus introduced the worship of the Emperor in the provinces, any statue of an Emperor is an idol., according to everybody they are forbidden. If it is certain that they are of rulers9The statue of a procurator is not an idol., according to everybody they are permitted. But where we hold is if it is indeterminate. Rebbi Meïr says, indeterminate they are of kings but the rabbis say, indeterminate they are of rulers. Ashian the woodworker in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: why are pictures forbidden10Flat pictures of pagan deities or pagan subjects, since the Second Commandment forbids only three-dimensional forms. Greek εἰκόνιον, “portrait”.? Because one burns incense before them at the time they are hung. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may look at them when they are taken down. What is the reason? You may look when the evildoers are being destroyed11Ps. 34:37.. One may not look at inscriptions under figures or under pictures on the Sabbath12Babli Šabbat 149a. Since the inscription explains what the picture is all about, reading it is for non-religious information which is forbidden on the Sabbath.. Not only this, but even on a weekday one does not look at pictures. What is the reason? Do not turn to idols13Lev. 19:4., do not turn to worship them; Rebbi Jehudah says, do not tum actually to see them. When Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai expired, the pictures were covered by bast mats14The entire paragraph in Eccl. rabba 9(9); cf. also Babli Moˋed qatan 25b.They covered all icons along the route of the funeral procession by mats. (In the Babli, the icons turned into mats.). Just as he did not see them during his lifetime, so he should not see them in his death. But do they know anything15Babli Berakhot 18a.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the only difference between us and the just is speech16Midrash Ps. 30(3) [ed. Buber Note 6]; Pesiqta rabbati 2 (ed. Friedmann Note 17), 12 (Note 4). The name tradition changes from source to source.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the dead person hears his eulogy as in a dream. Rebbi Ashian said, the dead person hears his eulogy16aקִילוּס “praise” is derived from Greek καλῶς! “beautiful, excellent”. For the use as “eulogy” compare καλολογέω, same as ἐυλογέω (E. G.). as in a dream. Why was he called “Naḥum the most holy man”? because he never in his life looked at the form on a coin17Sanhedrin 10:6 Note 335, Megillah 1:13 (72b l. 57) 3:3 (74a l. 39); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a.. Why was he called “our holy teacher”? Because he never looked at his circumcision17Sanhedrin 10:6 Note 335, Megillah 1:13 (72b l. 57) 3:3 (74a l. 39); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a.. 18Most of these remarks about wonders which happened at the death of holy men are alluded to in the Babli, Moˋed qaṭan 25b. When Rebbi Aḥa expired, a star was seen at high noon. When Rebbi Ḥanan expired, the statues were bent. When Rebbi Joḥanan expired, the pictures were bent. They said, there was no picture beauty like his19R. Joḥanan’s beauty is extolled in the Babli, Bava meṣiˋa 84a.. When Rebbi Ḥanina from Hauran expired, Lake Tiberias was split. They said, when he was going to intercalate20Calendar intercalations, the proclamations of an additional month in the year, were done at the hot springs of Gadara, near the South-East comer of the Lake or Genezareth., the lake was split before him. When Rav Hoshaia expired, the shame21Usually קָלוֹן “shame” means a brothel (cf. Horaiot 3:7 Note 259), possibly government run. It is possible that here one should read קוֹלוּמן columna “a pillar” (commentary Gilyon Efraim.) of Tiberias fell down. When Rebbi Isaac ben Elyashiv expired, 70 thresholds of Galilean houses were uprooted. They said, these were kept in place by his merit. 22This story appears also in Peah 1:1 (Note 139) and twice in Gen. rabba. The different Yerushalmi versions are compared in Appendix 2 of M. Sokoloff, The Geniza Fragments of Bereshit Rabba, Jerusalem 1982. (Babli Ketubot 17a.) When Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac expired, the cedars of the Land of Israel were uprooted. They said that he was taking branches and danced while singing23Arabic قلس “to dance while singing”. This קלס is not the verb קלס derived from Greek καλός “beautiful”. before brides. The rabbis were complaining about him. Rebbi Zeˋira said to them, let him alone, the old man does not24J. N. Epstein deletes this word since in the parallels R. Zeˋira appears in a positive light. know what he is doing. When he expired, fire came from Heaven and separated between his bier and the public; there were three hours of thunder and lightning in the world. They showed25Read חיוי instead of חײא. what this branch did for the old man. There came a disembodied voice and said, woe that Samuel bar Rav Isaac, the doer of good deeds, has expired. When Rebbi Yasa bar Ḥalfuta expired, the water pipes drew blood in Laodicea26In the Babli, R. Yose (ben Ḥalafta, the Tanna) at Sepphoris.. They said, because he devoted his life to circumcisions. When Rebbi Abbahu expired, the pillars of Caesarea were crying. The Samaritans said, they only are making a joyful noise27Since R. Abbahu was the driving force behind the permanent separation of Jews and Samaritans (Halakhah 5:3, Babli Hulin 6a.). The Jews told them, do the outsiders know what sound the insiders make? When Rebbi Abbahu expired, they had thirteen rivers of balsamum flowing before him. He asked them28The angels. The next paragraph implies that he saw his reward before his death, and explains the euphemism “expired” (really “slept”) for “died”. Gen. rabba63(3). A similar story is in the Babli, Taˋanit 25a, referring to R. Eleazar., for whom are these? They told him, they are yours. He said to them, all of this is for Abbahu, and I said. in vain I labored29Is. 49:4. Gen. rabba 63(3)., etc. 30Gen. rabba 63(3), an enlarged version. The Holy One, praise to Him, shows to the just their rewards in this world; their soul is satisfied and they go to sleep. [A parable] of a king who gave a dinner and pictured all kinds of dishes on a chart. When the guests entered they saw it, they were satiated and went to sleep. 31Gen. rabba 63(4), 92(2), Ex. rabba 22(3), Midrash Psalms 5(11). Zavdai ben Levai, and Rebbi Yose bar Petrus, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said three verses when they expired. One of them said, for this every pious one should pray to You32Ps. 32:6. etc. And one said, all who rely on You will enjoy33Ps. 5:12. etc. And one said, how great is Your bounty which You did hide for those who fear You34Ps. 31:20. etc. 35This paragraph is from Horaiot 3:7, Soṭah 9:17, 9:13–14 (Notes 212–218), Tosephta Soṭah 13:3–4; parallels in the Babli Berakhot57a, Soṭah 48b, Sanhedrin 11a. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Elders assembled in the upper story of House Gadya at Jericho when there came a disembodied voice and told them, there are two among you worthy of the Holy Spirit and one of them is Hillel the Elder. They looked at Samuel Minor. Then the Elders assembled in the upper story at Jabneh when there came a disembodied voice and told them, there are two among you worthy of the Holy Spirit and one of them is Samuel Minor. They looked at Eliezer ben Hyrcanos. They were happy that their opinion coincided with that of the Holy Spirit. One of the Patriarch’s court expired. The burial cave received him but people’s lives were endangered36Probably the cave was unsafe.. Rebbi Yose37This name probably should read “Yasa” as in the following, since R. Yose was R. Zeˋira’s student’s student. came and held a funeral oration, “happy the man who leaves the world in peace.” When Rebbi Yasa died, the sacred fountain38The usual interpretation as Latin castellum (New Greek καστέλλιον), expression used by Vitruvius for the water container on top of a water tower, fits Tosephta Miqwaot 4:6 but not this passage. Fortification in the Yerushalmi always appears as castra. -orum, and has nothing to do with pagan worship. The word here seems to be κασταλία “a sacred fountain”. Compare Latin castalius, “holy” (E. G.). of Tiberias fell down and those of the Patriarch’s court were happy39That something happened to the preacher who found fault with the court because something happened at one of its funerals.. Rebbi Zeˋira told them, it is not comparable. There people were in danger, here nobody was in danger. There no pagan worship was uprooted, here pagan worship was uprooted. 40Soṭah 9:17 (ס) Notes 283–284. The first paragraph is slightly reformulated, the second more radically except for the last sentence. Probably one should read bar Pazi instead of Rebbi Pazi. According toHoraiot 3:7 (Note 329) the family bar Pazi already was related to the Patriarchate but had no learned members. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, he said, clear the house because of impurity and prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the king of Judah. When his student Rebbi Eliezer died, he said, clear the house because of impurity and prepare a chair for Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. But some say, what his teacher saw, he saw. Some of the family of the Patriarch proposed a marriage connection to one of the house of Rebbi Pazi but he did not accept; he said that they should not be embarrassed by him. When he died he said, clear the house because of impurity and prepare a chair for Josaphat, the king of Judah. They said, the one who ran after honor should come for him who fled before honor. “But the Sages say, prohibited are only those in whose hand is a rod, or a bird, or a globe.” A rod by which he rules the world41Babli 41a. The other two attributes are interpreted differently; the Yerushalmi interpretation also is in Num. rabba 13(13).. A bird, my hand reaches to the riches of people as to a bird’s nest42Is. 10:14.. A globe, for the world is globe-shaped. 43Num. rabba 13(13). Rebbi Jonah said, when Alexander the Macedonian wanted to ascend he rose, and rose, and rose, until he saw the world as a globe and the ocean like a bowl. Therefore one represents him with a globe in his hand. Should one not represent him with a bowl in his hand? He does not rule over the Sea. But the Holy One, praise to Him, rules over Sea and dry land, He rescues on the Sea and on land. 44A slightly different version of this paragraph is in Berakhot 9:1 (Notes 56–58). Rebbi Zeˋira the son of Rebbi Abbahu preached before Rebbi Eleazar. Happy is he whom the God of Jacob helps45Ps. 146:5–6.. What is written after this? The Maker of Heaven and Earth. What has one to do with the other? But a king of flesh and blood needs a protector45*Latin patronus “protector, defender”.; in one district46Greek ἐπαρχία. he is not a ruler, maybe in another one? If you say a universal ruler47Greek κοσμοκράτωρ, the Roman Emperor. A king in the Roman principate was a local ruler subject to orders from Rome. rules over dry land, does he [rule] over the Sea? But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this; He rules over the Sea, He rules over dry land. Not only this, but if a sword is at a person’s neck the Holy One, praise to Him, saves him. That is what Moses said, He saved me from Pharao’ s sword48Ex. 18:4.. It is written only sword49Since it does not say “from Pharao” but “from Pharao’s sword” Moses was condemned to death but escaped miraculously (Berakhot 9:1 Notes 42–47, Deut. rabba 2(20), Midrash Cant. 7(5), Midrash Ps. 4[3].). Even if a sword is at his neck the Holy One, praise to Him, saves him from it. “They added to this the sword, the crown, and the ring.50Tosephta 5:1, Babli 41 a.” The sword with which he kills, the crown with which he crowns himself, the ring with which he seals. It is forbidden to seal with a seal on which there is an idol. Rebbi Jehudah says, if its seal was recessed it is forbidden to seal with it, if it protrudes it is permitted to seal with it51Babli 43b. A figure prohibited by the Second Commandment is a three-dimensional plastic image. A ring with a concave picture will result in a protruding seal which therefore is forbidden (but as the Babli points out, one is permitted to wear such a ring.) A ring with a protruding picture results in a recessed seal which is permitted (but one may not possess such a ring.). Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says, in my father’s family they were sealing with faces52Greek πρόσωπον, τό “face”.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, all kinds of faces were in Jerusalem except human ones53In the Babli (42b): All faces are permitted except human ones. Tosephta 5:2.. “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any in whose hand is anything.” But only matters of honor54Babli 43b.. A basket, laced shoes, and rags are matters of dishonor. Papyrus and reed pen55Greek καλαμάριον, τό. are matters of honor. The pen-case56In the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss.: “of idols”. While idols are and remain biblically forbidden for all usufruct, a pagan (not a Jew) who damages or breaks an idol thereby removes the character of instrument of worship. If one finds shards of vessels decorated with pagan symbols then either (1) it simply is a decorated vessel never intended for pagan worship, or (2) even if it was an object of worship there is a likelihood that a pagan broke and discarded it. As a general principle such a case (called “the doubt of a doubt”) in which the object may be permitted in each of the cases clears the objected from any biblical prohibition. is problematic.

MISHNAH: If one finds shards of vessels56In the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss.: “of idols”. While idols are and remain biblically forbidden for all usufruct, a pagan (not a Jew) who damages or breaks an idol thereby removes the character of instrument of worship. If one finds shards of vessels decorated with pagan symbols then either (1) it simply is a decorated vessel never intended for pagan worship, or (2) even if it was an object of worship there is a likelihood that a pagan broke and discarded it. As a general principle such a case (called “the doubt of a doubt”) in which the object may be permitted in each of the cases clears the objected from any biblical prohibition. they are permitted. If one finds the figure of a hand or of a foot these are forbidden because similar ones are worshipped57In this case, possibility (1) is very remote; there is only one doubt which is not enough to remove the biblical prohibition.. HALAKHAH: “If one finds shards of vessels,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because most of them come from three-legged tables58Greek δέλφιξ, -ικος, a (Delphian) tripod or small three-legged table. In this case the possibility of case (2) is remote.. Then also figures of a hand or figures of a foot? There is a difference since similar ones are worshipped. 59Here starts a Geniza text (G), one leaf also edited by J. N. Epstein (Chapter 2, Note 361). The parallel in the Babli is Sanhedrin 63b. It is written602K. 17:30.: The people from Babylon made Sukkot Benot, the chicken and its young, and the people of Kuta made the Nergal, the foot of Jacob and the foot of Joseph61Some of the regions mentioned here and most of the deities are unidentified in cuneiform sources but Nergal is well identified as the god of the Underworld. Since the word does not correspond to any Semitic root, Nun is considered a prefix leaving a root רגל “foot” which in turn is taken of the source of גלל “because of” in analogy to עקב “heel, in consequence of”., I divined that the Eternal blessed me for your sake62Ge n. 30:12.; the Eternal blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake63Ge n. 39:5..The people of Ḥamma made the Ashima, a sheep, as you say, the Cohen shall atone for him by the asham ram64Le v. 19:22. G quotes 5:16 instead. In both cases there is acoustic similarity between asham and ashima.. The Awim made the Nibḥan65Both sources and the Babli read נבחן “the barker” against the MT נִבְחָז which together with תרתק are read as Elamite by modem interpreters., a dog, and the Tartaq, a donkey. And the Sepharwites burned their sons in fire [to Adrammelekh and Annamelekh the gods of Sepharwaim]66Parentheses added from G; while the interpretations clearly refer to the deities mentioned in the addition, in talmudic style the explicit quote is not strictly necessary., peacock67Greek ταώς, ὁ. In Latin, taos, -i, m., is “a precious multi-colored stone”. and pheasant68Latin phasianus, also phasiana, -ae, f. (Edict. Diocl.). According to myth, it is metamorphosed Itis, a son of Tereus. He was killed by his mother and served to his father, then changed into a pheasant.. An idol which was broken69In the Babli, 41b, “if it broke spontaneously.” This is the reading of the correction in G over the line. Therefore one has to assume that the reading in the text simply means that a piece is before us and we do not know how it was broken. The argument in the text shows that the idol was a decoration of a vessel, not a statue., Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is permitted70Babli 41b.. Where do we hold? If in the future he would return it to its vessel, everybody agrees it is forbidden. If in the future he will not return it to its vessel, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we hold if it is not indicated. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not indicated is as if he would return it to its vessel; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, not indicated is as if he would not return it to its vessel. Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, if they were lying on their spot71All parts of the vessel are still available, so it can be glued back together. it is if he would return it to its vessel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi [Joḥanan]72From G, missing in L.: Is it not written, therefore the priests of Dagon and all visitors to Dagon’s temple will not step on Dagon’s threshold731S. 5:5. Since it does not mention Dagon’s hands and head, it proves that once a statue is broken it is not worshipped any longer by pagans. In the Babli the same verse serves to buttress R. Joḥanan’s position against R. Simeon ben Laqish.? He told him, this teaches that they honored the threshold more than Dagon. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the peoples of the world made one threshold; Israel made many thresholds; what is the reason? I shall visit on [any]74Added from G (and the verse in MT); needed for the point of the sermon. who skips over the threshold [on that day]75Zeph. 1:9.. If somebody finds an idol, Rav said, he breaks it limb by limb and it becomes insignificant, but Samuel said, it never can become insignificant76Rav holds that an idol broken into little pieces cannot be reconstituted. Therefore it is no longer an idol and the shards may be used. Samuel holds that an idol which falls into the hands of a Jew is ḥerem and forbidden for any use under any circumstance (Deut. 13:18). For him the only way an idol or its parts can become useable for a Jew is that a Gentile (a pagan) breaks it. The Babli (49b) explains Samuel’s position away.. Rebbi Abin in the name of (Rebbi Simeon) [Samuel]77Reading of L in (parentheses), of G in [brackets].: This means78This refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, about hands and feet. If these are complete, not broken off from a base, the Mishnah applies; these are complete objects of worship. But if they are broken off a basis they are shards. Babli 41a/b. if they are without base. But if they have a base, I am saying they come from shards.

MISHNAH: If somebody finds vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon79According to Maimonides, not circles representing sun and moon but their astrological representation., the form of a dragon80Greek δράκων, -οντος, ὁ, also “dragon-shaped jewellery”., he should bring them to the Dead Sea81Made from precious metals. All others fall under the category of “contemptible”.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, on honored ones82Deut. 13:18. it is forbidden, on contemptible ones permitted. Rebbi Yose said, he grinds them and disperses them into the wind or throws them into the Sea. They told him, but then it becomes fertilizer and it was said, nothing of the ban should cling to your hand83While they are divinities, they are not actively worshipped.. HALAKHAH: “If somebody finds vessels,” etc. They stated only “vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon,” therefore not any of the other planets83While they are divinities, they are not actively worshipped.. They only stated “dragon”, therefore not any snakes. What is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. It was stated thus84Tosephta 5:2.: “Rebbi Simeon ben (Azzai) [Eleazar]85The reading of Tosephta, G, and the Leiden ms. before correction is “Eleazar”. In addition, while ben Azzai’s name was Simeon, he was not ordained and never is called “rabbi”. The correction is a corruption. says, what is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. “If it86The neck on the snake-shaped vessel. is smooth it is permitted. If one finds a dragon in the form of a something crawling87The word may mean either snake, or worm, or even a small rodent. it is forbidden. Something crawling and on it a dragon, he takes the crawling thing and throws away the dragon. Samuel said, a cup which serves as base for a dragon is forbidden, a dragon which serves as base for a cup is permitted88In the first case it may be an object of worship, in the second the dragon is a decoration.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Fragments of a dragon are permitted. If it was a whole dragon and broke, it is forbidden89Since a forbidden idol can become permitted only if a Gentile, not a Jew, breaks it (Note 76)..But did the fragments not come from a whole one? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rav: So it is: If one saw them bowing down before a whole dragon and then it was broken, it is forbidden90Then there is an indication that the idol broke by accident, not by intention, and the shards remain forbidden.. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they are worshipped, even the contemptible ones are forbidden. If it is certain that they are not worshipped, even the honored ones are permitted. But we must deal with the indeterminate case. Rebbi Crispus said, those cups91In G: “garment”. The following sentences show that the text of L is correct even though Gen.r. 81(3) quotes R. Joḥanan to the effect that garments may be forbidden as pagan (based on Gen. 35:2). belong to the contemptible category, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba had a pitcher92A Syriac word as identified in Sokoloff’s Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. and the (worth) [fortune]93The reading of G, τύχη “fortune, destiny” is preferable over the reading of L, τιμή “worth, value”. of Rome94The vocalization is from G referring to Romae. was pictured on it. He came to ask Rebbi Joḥanan who told him, since water swims on top of it, it is a contemptible one. A drinking cup95Greek κῶθων, “Laconian drinking vessel used by soldiers; drinking bout; religious banquet”. is contemptible since one immerses it in water. In the days of Rebbi Joḥanan they started painting on walls96Since the paintings are flat, they are not prohibited by the Second Commandment. and he did not protest against it. [In the days of Rebbi Abun they started depicting by mosaics and he did not protest against it.97Text of G, missing in L. As J. N. Epstein notes, any synagogue mosaic floor which shows figures (as opposed to text) must be dated after R. Abun’s time (about the year 300).] 98Babli 43b/44a, Tosephta 3:19. The speaker is R. Yose the Tanna who objects to the statement that the idol has to be dumped into the Dead Sea; he brings examples of disposition of pagan idols in other ways. Rebbi Yose objected to the rabbis, is it not written: your sin which you had made, the calf99Deut. 9:21.? They told him, this teaches that he intended to examine them in the way one examines deviant wives: he strewed it on the surface of the water100Ex. 32:20. As usual, the argument is from the part of the verse which is not quoted, viz., he let the Children of Israel drink. The deviant wife has to drink water mixed with dust from the floor of the Sanctaury, Num. 5:11–31..He said to them, is it not written, and also Maacah, king Asa’s mother, he removed from power1011K. 15:13.? They told him, is there proof from there? Asa cut down102Since Asa burned his mother’s Ashera, there is no doubt that burning a wooden statue is as good as bringing it to the Dead Sea. etc. He told them, he beat the bronze serpent to pieces1032K. 18:4.. Was this an object of worship? Did not Moses make it? This teaches that Israel was erring after it until Hezekias came and removed it104Here ends the Genizah fragment G edited by Epstein; on the next line starts one (ג) edited by Ginzberg (pp. 278–279) of which, however, not very much is legible.. One verse says, they abandoned their idols; David and his men carried them away1052S. 5:21. The verse implies that the idols were a valuable part of the booty. According to the Mishnah the idols should have been brought to the Dead Sea, not to Hebron.. But another verse says, David gave orders and they were burned in the.fire1061Chr. 14:12, another report about the same event.. Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta107This is the reading of ג, which agrees with the name of the Tanna in other sources. and the rabbis. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥalafta says, what was of metal, David and his men carried them away. And what was of wood, David gave orders and they were burned in the fire. But the rabbis say, what Itai from Gat108They assume that he was a Gentile and therefore able to break the idols to remove the prohibition and turn them into valuable metal scrap. Babli 44a annulled, David and his men carried them away. And what he did not annul, David gave orders and they were burned in fire. How does Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta confirm David and his men carried them away? They took them by their rims109To grind them down as R. Yose prescribes in the Mishnah..

MISHNAH: Proclos ben Ploslos110In the Babli פלוספוס which can be read פִלוֹסֳפוֹס “philosopher”; in the Venice edition of Alfasi פלופלוס, but in most sources, including Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah Commentary the name is written as in the Yerushalmi Mishnah. asked Rabban Gamliel in Acco when he was taking a bath in the Bath of Aphrodite111According to Maimonides there is no problem since Aphrodite is the symbol of the planet Venus, which was exempted from the general prohibition of pagan symbols in Halakhah 3 Note 83.. He said to him, it is written in your Torah, nothing banned should stick to your hand112Deut. 13:18.: why are you bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite? He said to him, one does not answer in the bath113One may not discuss religious subjects while naked. Cf. Berakhot 2:3 Notes 116–119.. When he left he told him, I did not come into her domain, she came into my domain. One does not say, the bath was built as adornment for Aphrodite but one says, Aphrodite was made as adornment of the bath.Another explanation. If one gave you lots of money, would you enter your temple naked, after an emission, or urinating before it? But this one stands over the sewer and everybody is urinating in its presence. It only says their gods114Deut. 12:30; the verse which is the basis of Mishnah 6.; what is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as a divinity is not forbidden. HALAKHAH: “Proclos ben Ploslos asked,” etc. Where do we hold? If he asked him about practice in the bath he should have answered; if he did not ask him about practice in the bath he should not have answered115Since the instruction that one does not answer in the bath, i. e., in the room where people are naked, is a religious instruction forbidden at that place.. 116The main source for the following is Šabbat 3:3 (6a l.51, ש), Babli Šabbat 40b. As Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One asks about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. As when Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to bathe with Rebbi Meïr, he asked him, may one rinse? He told him, it is forbidden117As explained in Šabbat, they went to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath. It is forbidden to take a hot bath in water which was heated, but not in water which is naturally hot. But then one has to be careful not to rinse oneself outside the water flowing from the source since water spilled on the earth outside would fill in depressions in the ground, which is prohibited work.. May one dry himself with a towel? He told him, it is forbidden118Similarly, one may not use a bath towel on the Sabbath since squeezing out water from a towel (or a sponge) is forbidden work.. But did not Samuel ask Rav, may one say “Amen” at a dirty place? He told him, it is forbidden, and it is forbidden that I told you that it is forbidden119Since he was asked at a place with a bad smell. He disagrees with R. Jacob bar Idi.. It was found stated, one asks120In Šabbat: “One does not ask.” This supports Rav and seems to be the original version. Unfortunately, ג is damaged at this passage. about practice in the bath while in the bathhouse, about practice in the toilet while in the toilet. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, he asked him about practice in the bath but it is not done121In ג:“is not polite”. to answer in the bath. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he asked him about practice in the bath but the steam in the bath is bad for the teeth. The colleagues, Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name if Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He answered him in an evasive answer122Babli 44b., for he could have replied about Baal Peˋor whose worship only consists in exposure and defecation123Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:12.. What about it124What would be the correct answer?? What is treated as a divinity is forbidden, what is not treated as divinity is not forbidden.

MISHNAH: If Gentiles worship mountains and hills; these are permitted125For agricultural use; the ground and what grows on it is not forbidden as long as it is connected to the ground. but what is on them is forbidden, as it is said126Deut. 7:25. If a mountain top is covered in gold or silver, the cover has to be removed and destroyed; only the ground itself is permitted., do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, their gods [are] on the mountains127Deut. 12:2., the mountains are not their gods. Their gods [are] on the hills, the hills are not their gods. Then why is an Ashera128A holy tree (Mishnah 11), which is connected to the ground and by the argument of Note 125 should be permitted as building material or fire wood. forbidden? Because it was held by human hand129It was planted., and anything held by human hand is forbidden.Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you. Any place where you find a high mountain, or an elevated hill, or a sprightly tree, know that there is idolatry162Deut. 12:2 reads: You shall certainly destroy all the places where the peoples from whom you will inherit worshipped their gods, on high mountains, and hills, and under each sprightly tree. This explains clearly that not the place is forbidden but the idol and its temple to be found there.. HALAKHAH: “If Gentiles worship mountains,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: One verse says126Deut. 7:25. If a mountain top is covered in gold or silver, the cover has to be removed and destroyed; only the ground itself is permitted., do not covet silver or gold on them and take for yourself. And one verse says130Deut. 29:16., silver and gold which is with them. If on them why with them, and if with them why on them? Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them131Since the mountains themselves cannot become forbidden, only adornments made explicitly for pagan worship can be forbidden. Therefore also of the contents of a dwelling only idolatrous objects can be forbidden for all usufruct. Babli 51b., also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Anything which one introduced inside the lattice work132The inner part of a temple, cf. Chapter 2:3, Note 219. he made forbidden; e. g., money pouches. Rebbi Yasa said, we had a note that (return) [this]133The text of L (in parentheses) is clearly a scribal error; one has to follow the text of ג [in brackets]. of Rebbi Hoshaia disagreed with Rebbi Yannai, but it is not so; it supports it. Since on them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them, also with them refers to something which is particular for them and an adornment for them; this excludes money pouches134This seemingly contradicts R. Yannai’s statement.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even water and salt. Salt to rub and water to rinse135To polish the statues.. And this is “even”? But e. g., water and salt136It is obvious that in general Gentiles’ water and salt are permitted. They become forbidden only by being introduced into the inner temple for idolatrous purposes. So also a Gentile’s wallet and his money are permitted. Only by being introduced into the inner temple the money becomes forbidden. The statement of R. Yannai is a necessary complement to that of R. Hoshaia and vice-versa. Babli 51b.. 137This paragraph is from Kilaim 7:4, Notes 46–48 (כ). An object of worship. Some Tannaim state, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden. But some Tannaim state, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted. He who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden, [Rebbi Meïr and]138Added from both parallel texts. The reference is to Mishnaiot Kilaim 7:4,5. If a person grows vegetables or grain in his vineyard, everything becomes forbidden for usufruct. But if he causes such a growth on another person’s land, R. Meïr holds that the crop is forbidden and the owner of the land has to sue the culprit for damages; R. Yose and R. Simeon hold on the authority of R. Aqiba that “nobody can sanctify anything which is not his.” In our case, anybody who worships an animal or an object which is his, made it forbidden for usufruct for himself and everybody else. But if the object was not his property, for R. Yose and R. Simeon it cannot become forbidden for anybody. Rebbi Jehudah. But he who said, his is forbidden, another person’s is permitted, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yose139The fifth-generation Amora. in the name of Rebbi Ila: It is everybody’s opinion. Just as you say there, anything living140Any living animal which is worshipped is an animal and not an idol and cannot be forbidden. while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it (does not)141This word is not in the parallel text; the context and the following paragraph make it clear that it is a scribal error. become forbidden for Heaven142The comparison with Kilaim is misleading. The relevant Mishnah is Temurah 6:1 where it is stated that an animal used for idolatry (or bestiality) is unfit as sacrifice, irrespective of ownership. For sacrifices there is no dispute between R. Meïr and R. Yose. Babli Temurah28a.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even his fine flour becomes forbidden and another person’s is permitted143While it is clear from our Mishnah that if anybody worships wild standing grain it will not be forbidden since it is connected to the ground (but if it was sown for idolatrous purposes then it is an Ashera.) It now is stated that cut and milled produce will only be forbidden if used illegitimately by its owner, not by any third person.. Is this following him who said, whether it was his or another person’s, it is forbidden; did he say144While this word is not in ג, it is better to retain it. that they do not disagree about something which is not alive and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya comes to tell you that the baraita refers to living things? If they disagree about something which is not alive; therefore a living thing is forbidden145If R. Abun bar Ḥiyya disagrees with R. Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila. He should have mentioned an animal, not fine flour. For if R. Meïr and R. Yose disagree about plants then one must assume that R. Yose agrees with R. Meïr about animals.. Then something which is not alive should be forbidden a fortiori146Since animals have a privileged status; R. Yose cannot agree with R. Meïr about their status.. This is that you should not say as you say there, anything living while it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven, so similarly anything which is not yours even though it cannot become forbidden for a private person it becomes forbidden for Heaven147R. Abun bar Ḥiyya disagrees with R. Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila in a matter of principle; he holds that worshipping something which is the private property of a third person without knowledge or acquiescence of that third person has no influence on the status of the property whether for profane or sacral purposes. Here ends the Genizah text. If somebody worshipped an egg148Babli 46a. The egg is a symbol of resurrection; cf. J. J. Bachofen, Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik der Alten, Gesammelte Werke Bd. 4, Basel 1954. Ḥizqiah said, he did not make it forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, he made it forbidden149For Ḥizqiah the egg is considered under the rules of animals; for R. Joḥanan only the chick would qualify, not the egg.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they disagree about an egg. The colleagues say, they disagree about pebbles in a river bed150These are egg shaped. While they are products of nature, they are no longer connected to the ground.. Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports what the colleagues say:Your part is with river pebbles; these are your destiny151Is.57:6.. The strength of Ḥizqiah is from the following: “Then why is an Ashera forbidden? Because it was held by human hand, and anything held by human hand is forbidden.” Everybody agrees that wheat is forbidden151Is.57:6.; 152The remainder of the paragraph has no connection with the topic of the Halakhah and the preceding text; it also appears in Berakhot9:3 Notes 170–174, Taˋaniot 1:3 (64b 1.30); its source seems to be Gen. rabba 13(19) on Gen. 2:6. The different name traditions are noted in the Notes to Berakhot. as Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yasa said in the name of Rav Jehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits; the soft roots of a fig tree split rock. Then what do the roots of the carob and the roots of the sycamore? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? I, the Eternal, am watching over it and water it in moments1Prohibited for usufruct. For R. Meïr there are no statues made for artistic value alone.52Greek πρόσωπον, τό “face”.. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, this teaches that the earth drinks only according to its hardness. 154These two paragraphs are also in ‘Orlah 1:8, Notes 200–208, ע.The scribe of L wrote only the first and last few words and then: “one continues in Avodah zarah Chapter 3, Halakhah 6, ‘if Gentiles worship’, to the end.” The text was then added by the first corrector in a somewhat shoddy way, from a source different from the text here. The full text is in the Rome Zeraˋim ms. An egg of pagan worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Cahana and Ḥizqiah disagree. Cahana said, it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. There is a difficulty in the opinion of Ḥizqiah: how is it possible for an egg of pagan worship to become a chick? Where do we hold? If somebody squashed it, there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure, come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden149For Ḥizqiah the egg is considered under the rules of animals; for R. Joḥanan only the chick would qualify, not the egg.; because he brought it inside the grating it should be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used to tow155This is the text here. In ‘Orlah: “he fenced in”, confirmed by the Rome text. This text can be understood since it mentions the walnut which was planted at the beginning of the first paragraph, not the second as in the text here. If a walnut tree was planted to close an opening in the lattice work, this certainly makes it forbidden as an Ashera. It is hard to see how to tow anything using an egg; the difference between the two texts is that between גרר and גרר. Neither of the two expressions makes much sense if applied to an egg. the idol. If an ‘orlah walnut was planted156The walnut was forbidden for all usufruct; the status of the tree is in doubt. or an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick157It is property of the Temple and cannot be used without redemption. This case is not in dispute.. Rebbi Yasa said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted158Everybody agrees that the new tree is not ‘orlah. According to Cahana the original prohibition has not disappeared, according to R. Joḥanan the situation is parallel to that of heave grain (restricted as food to pure Cohanim) which was used as seed grain; the crop needs only token redemption (Mishnah Terumot 9:4).. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, did not Rebbi [Joḥanan]159From the text in ‘Orlah, missing here. say it is permitted, does he not redeem it as from the time it is sown160This refers to the walnut. If the tree may be used, it never was ‘orlah; the redemption is symbolic and can be effected by a token payment.? There came Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now161It needs redemption for its full value; in the case of the ‘orlah tree the redemption money has to be destroyed.; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown. “Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it to you,” etc. We have stated אוֹבִין. Some are stating אוֹבִיל. He who says אוֹבִין “we understand.” But he who says אוֹבִיל “we bring.163The hapax אוֹבִין is derived from the root בין “to understand”, אוֹבִיל is from the root יבל “to transport”. Both verbs are used in hifˋil.” Rebbi Borqai stated before Rebbi Mana: This teaches that the Canaanites did not leave any mountain or hill where they did not worship. But do we not understand to say, anything alive, while not forbidden for a private person, is forbidden for Heaven165If it was worshipped as pagan deity, Note 142.? How could the Temple have been built166While a mountaintop is perfectly good for agricultural use, it should be forbidden as a place for the Temple. Therefore the place could not have been selected by humans. It is not a mountain top.? By the order of a prophet; David went up following the word of Gad which he had said by the Hand of the Eternal1671Chr. 21:19, slightly misquoted..

MISHNAH: If one’s house was connected168His house and the pagan temple share a wall. to a house of pagan worship and collapsed, it is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He restricts himself to his property169In the Babli: 4 cubits. His wall should be separated from the temple by 4 cubits. The text of Maimonides is that of the Yerushalmi. and builds. If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half170He may take half of the building material of the common wall for his own use; the remainder is forbidden for all usufruct for any Jew. Its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal171As described in Lev. 11: 29–38, it makes impure by touch. This applies also to the stones which remain his property., as it is said172Deut. 7:26. In Lev. 11:40–41, all crawling things which are forbidden as food are called abomination, including those which make impure by touch., you shall treat it as an abomination. Rebbi Aqiba says like a menstruating woman as it is said173Is. 30:22. In Lev. 12:2 menstruation is called “the separation of her feeling miserable”., you shall throw it away like feeling miserable; you will call it excrement. Since the menstruating makes impure by load174In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything she lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he touched the woman herself. For R. Aqiba anybody who carries an idol becomes impure even if he never touched the idol., also idolatry makes impure by load. HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. 175This Halakhah also is Halakhah 9:1 in Šabbat(ש). Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations176Lev. 18:29. The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature.. About vermin, do not eat any abomination177Deut. 14: 2. The verse refers to all food prohibitions.. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house178Deut. 7:26. This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry.. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load174In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything she lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he touched the woman herself. For R. Aqiba anybody who carries an idol becomes impure even if he never touched the idol., also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone179Stone is impervious to impurity. In general, anything not susceptible to impurity cannot transmit impurity. The one and only exception is impurity caused by genital discharges where impurity by load (Note 174) applies to anything under the affected person and even a stone plate covering a mattress will not shield the mattress from impurity if a person afflicted by a genital discharge sits on the stone. Babli Niddah 69b., does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina180In, Šabbat: Rav Jehudah. On one hand, the tradent in Šabbat is mentioned as R. Zeriqan, the Yerushalmi form, not the Babli form Zeriqa as here; but this is to be explained by the babylonized spelling of the text of the present Tractate. On the other hand, the tradent in the Babli (Šabbat 82b) is R. Eleazar, a known student of R. Ḥanina., but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion181Here one has a serious discrepancy between the technical terminology of the Babli and the Yerushalmi. In the Babli impurity by motion is a form of impurity by load: If a person suffering from a genital discharge moves something indirectly or is moved with it, he imparts impurity. In the Yerushalmi this is consistently designated by its Mishnaic name, מִדְרָס, “stepping on.” This kind of impurity emphatically does not exist for vermin, or anything other than genital discharges. Therefore היסט the “motion” mentioned here must be that of a person’s hand touching an impure object. Transfer of impurity by touch is the only one mentioned for the eight kinds of impure vermin., so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity182Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead183Ps. 106:28.. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity182Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in184This refers to “tent” impurity (Ševuot 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip., could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house185A house afflicted with recurrent “leprosy” must be torn down (Lev. 14:45). Pagan altars must be torn down (Deut. 12:3). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similiar, not exactly identical.. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body186Based on Lev. 14:46, which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8., so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina187In Šabbat: Ḥanania. The latter attribution is correct since he must have been a contemporary of R. Mana (II). said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent188Neither R. Aqiba nor the rabbis are consistent in their comparisons.. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it189The impurity of idols and idolatry should follow the rules common to impurities generated either by dead vermin or by bodily discharges. This argument is known in the Babli tradition as הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה “the equal part;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185.. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size190This is consistent with the impurity of animals as food, where a complete creature always is biblically forbidden irrespective of size (cf. Nazir 6:1 Note 64)., as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun191In ש: R. Ḥuna. said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god192Jud. 8:33. Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus.. What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? You should treat it as an abomination193Deut. 7:26., like a menstruating woman. What is the rabbis’ reason? You should detest it, like vermin. How do the rabbis uphold Rebbi Aqiba’s reason, you should treat it as abomination? Treat it as excrement, make it vile194ש has an addition: How does R. Aqiba interpret the rabbi’s reason, you should detest it? Detest it, make it vile. Babli 46a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim 20 (p. 332 ed. Horovitz-Rabin).. What means “make it vile” for the rabbis? Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: you shall call it excrement. What is called God’s195In ש: King’s face.. Face is called Dog’s Face. Spring of the Cup is called Spring of the Thorn. The Place of Fortune is called the Place of Undress196All these places and most of their idolatrous meanings are unknown. A similar list is as Tannaitic text in the Babli 46a, Tosephta 6:4. Rebbi Tanḥuma (asked) [in the name of]197The reading of Avodah zarah is in (parentheses), that of Šabbat in [brackets]. Rebbi Huna: It is written198Jos. 7:2., The Ai which is near Bet-Awen East of Bethel. Earlier it was called Bethel but now one calls it Bet-Awen199It seems that the translator of the LXX read the verse in the way of the Talmud and eliminated the mention of Bet-Awen, “the House of Iniquity”, as a gloss, as accepted by the moderns. (However, E. Täubler in a marginal Note to his copy of M. Noth’s Das Buch Josua, Tübingen 1938, identifies Bet-Awen as the old name of “The Ai (ruin)”; cf. Arabic اون “calm, tranquillity”.). It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If one does not want to call it ‘Omda one calls it ‘Amida since the flow of urine is called ‘amida200This piece is truncated here but it is in bad shape both here and in Šabbat (and Yalqut Jos. ad 7:2). It is intelligible in Gen. rabba 39(24), on Gen. 12:8, the first mention of The Ai in the Bible, following the interpretation of J. Levy:ויעתק משם ההרה מקדם לבית אל. לשעבר היתה נקראת בית אל ועכשיו היא נקראת בית און. א״ר אלעזר לא זכתה להקראת בית העמל הרי היא הקראת בית העמד. תמן קרײן לפועלא טבא עמילה ולהרהון של מימי רגלים עמידה.He transferred from there to the mountain, East of Bethel. In the past it was called Bethel but now it is called Bet Awen. Rebbi Eleazar said, it did not merit to be called the House of Work but it is called the House of Baptism. There, they are calling a good worker عَمِل but the chamber pot ἀμίδα.. How (do the rabbis) [does Rebbi Aqiba]197The reading of Avodah zarah is in (parentheses), that of Šabbat in [brackets]. interpret you shall call it excrement? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Josef: from (where) [here]197The reading of Avodah zarah is in (parentheses), that of Šabbat in [brackets]. that one does not tell anybody to leave unless he entered with his head and most of his body. 204At some places, this paragraph has been shortened from the text in Šabbat to the extent as to become unintelligible without recourse to that text. There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals205The first opinion is the teaching of R. Aqiba in the Mishnah, the second is ascribed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Šabbat 83a.. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances206The full text of Is. 30:22 (quoted in Šabbat) which is the base of R. Aqiba’s argument reads: You will defile the cover of your silver statues and the clothing of your golden casts; you shall throw it away like feeling miserable, you shall call it excrement. Therefore the reference of “feeling miserable” which is the description of a female period refers to appurtenances only. The second version of the position of R. Aqiba seems untenable.? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod207The formulation in Šabbat is better: R. Jacob said (as an alternative explanation) that the statue and its ornamental vest were two separate objects of worship. Either explanation is possible.. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.208Since this sentence in the Mishnah precedes the statement of R. Aqiba, it is implied that R. Aqiba disagrees and imposes the impurity of niddah also on the stones which form the shell of the house of worship but are not the object of worship.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden209A comparison with the text in Šabbat shows that the sentence has to be split in two. First it is stated that the house will be strictly impure if it was worshipped. Then a question is missing, quoting the following Mishnah 9: Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated? On this Rav says that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a.. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden210In Šabbat one reads: “R. Zeˋura, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan, if one dedicates his house one commits larceny with it.” The reading here is confirmed by Halakhah 9.One compares the rules concerning a pagan temple with those of a house dedicated to the Temple (Lev. 27:14–15). Improper use of dedicated things is larceny which must be expiated by a sacrifice and payment of a fine, (Lev. 5:14–16). Just as real estate cannot become forbidden by idolatry, larceny by improper use of dedicated objects does not apply to real estate. If a house is considered real estate, it cannot become forbidden by worship, and its improper use while in the possession of the Temple cannot trigger a fine for larceny. If it is not considered real estate since the building materials were movables before being used, it can become forbidden and improper use can trigger the fine.? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.211Mishnah Parah 5:7. The ashes of the Red Cow, used to purify a person from the impurity of the dead, must be strewn on “flowing water in a vessel” (Num. 19:17). A vessel is movable; therefore a trough hewn into the rock is not a vessel. The water flowing from the source into the trough becomes standing water. Therefore it may be used neither (1) to fill a vessel for the ashes, nor (2) to put some ashes in the water, “to sanctify it”, nor (3) to sprinkle the water on impure persons to purify them.In addition, a corpse in a “tent” makes everything in the tent impure including the contents of vessels whose cover is not tightly fastened (Num. 19:15). Since the trough is no vessel, if it is under one roof with a corpse it only needs to be covered but the cover does not have to be fastened.A miqweh (ritual bath) has to contain 40 seah of water. It becomes invalid if 3 log (⅛ seah) of water from a vessel is poured into it. If the trough is not a vessel, its water cannot invalidate the miqweh. On the other hand, if the trough was a vessel before it was fastened in the rock, it can be used for the ashes of the red cow, and its water will disqualify the miqweh.Since a house was not a vessel before being connected to the ground, it should be considered real estate and not be subject to prohibition because of worship.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it212A vessel which is permanently fixed to the ground remains a vessel and can become forbidden.. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it213A piece of loose rock which was cemented to the ground and then a trough was hewn from it does not become a vessel. Then why should a house become forbidden by being worshipped since it becomes a house only after being connected to the ground?? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them214It is true that a finished house not built as a temple cannot become forbidden. But if the finished stones for a stone building were worshipped before being cemented in the house they already are forbidden and do not become permitted by use as building blocks.. Does this215. The Mishnah which subjects the building material of the collapsed wall to the rules of idolatry. Babli Meˋilah 20a. not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody216The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them217Then each individual stone remains forbidden; there is no contradiction to Mishnah 10.. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody216The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it218This refers to a holy tree which is worshipped as Ashera (Mishnah 11) but where no idol is found buried under it. Then as connected to the ground it should not be part of the real estate and not be forbidden. It becomes permanently forbidden only if it was planted as a holy shoot.. Levi said, one who worships a house makes it forbidden209A comparison with the text in Šabbat shows that the sentence has to be split in two. First it is stated that the house will be strictly impure if it was worshipped. Then a question is missing, quoting the following Mishnah 9: Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated? On this Rav says that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a., a cave he does not make forbidden219Even if the cave was excavated for purposes of idol worship it does not lose its character as real estate.. What is between a house and a cave? Rebbi Ḥanina hen Rebbi Hillel said, a house was separated at some time; a cave never was separated. 220This paragraph is not in Šabbat. Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah221To explain how the house of a Jew and a pagan place of worship may share a wall. about a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father. Why does he not explain it when idol worship came and built next to him? It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted222If the Jew’s house was there before the pagan, it is not touched by temporary use of the adjacent house as place of pagan worship. But if the Jew builds in disregard of the injunction of the Mishnah to construct a separate wall inside his real estate he is fined.. But for a proselyte and a pagan who inherited from their pagan father, it is forbidden. It was stated: If a house of idol worship was built next to him and then left it is permitted. But if he came and built next to idol worship the entire house is for idol worship222If the Jew’s house was there before the pagan, it is not touched by temporary use of the adjacent house as place of pagan worship. But if the Jew builds in disregard of the injunction of the Mishnah to construct a separate wall inside his real estate he is fined.. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “If it was his and the idolatry’s, it is judged half by half.223The Mishnah might be referring to a house built after the pagan place already existed, not a proselyte brother to a pagan.”

MISHNAH: There are three houses. A house which one built originally for idolatry is forbidden. If he whitewashed it or ornamented it for idolatry and renovated, one removes what he renovated. If he introduced there an idol and removed it, it is permitted. HALAKHAH: “There are three houses,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, the Mishnah treats their entry into the Land224Deut. 7:5 is an unconditional commandment to destroy all pagan altars and Temples in existence at the time of the conquest. This agrees with the statement that the house in the first case is absolutely and irrevocably forbidden, since in all other cases a partial destruction of the house will remove the prohibition.. The opinion of Rav, who said that one who worships a house makes it forbidden, is the reason that he explains it by their entry into the Land225Since he considers a house as a kind of movable (Note 209), his problem is that the first rule of the Mishnah should apply not only to a house built as a pagan temple but also to one which was worshipped. But the effect of worship can be undone (Halakhot 14–16); only the commandment Deut. 7:5 is absolute.. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that if somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it, could he not have explained it by somebody who was worshipping the house226Since a house is real estate, it cannot become forbidden by simply being worshipped. But if a Jew built it for purposes of idolatry, it becomes forbidden by an act of idolatry (Mishnah 4:4). Therefore the first case of the Mishnah could also be referred to a case possible today. One does not expect a rule in the Mishnah which became obsolete some 1500 years before its formulation. The answer to be given is the same as in the case of Rav.? {The effect of] one who worships a house can be voided. At their entry into the Land it could not be voided225Since he considers a house as a kind of movable (Note 209), his problem is that the first rule of the Mishnah should apply not only to a house built as a pagan temple but also to one which was worshipped. But the effect of worship can be undone (Halakhot 14–16); only the commandment Deut. 7:5 is absolute.. What could he do227To desecrate the house and therefore nullify its pagan status.? He removes its clapboards and it is permitted. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he brought an idol into it228This now refers to the second case, a house renovated for the purpose of idolatry. As property of the Jew it becomes forbidden only by an act of pagan worship, not by intention (Mishnah 4:4).. In the opinion of Rebbi [Eleazar]229Missing in the text; added from Halakhah 10 as required by the context. there are two houses. But have we not stated three? Here temporarily, there permanently230Since the presence of an idol is required in both cases 2 and 3, what is the difference? In case 3 the idol is temporarily in the house; one removes it and the house is permitted. In case 2 the intention is a permanent installation of the idol; therefore not only the idol but all installation has to be removed. Also for R. Eleazar there are three distinct cases..

MISHNAH: There are three kinds of stone. If he quarried them from the start as pedestal231Greek βωμός. The expression is used exclusively for pedestals of idols (including statues of emperors). From the comparison with the next Mishnaiot one must assume that a pedestal in itself was an object of veneration. it is forbidden. If he whitewashed it and ornamented it for idolatry and renovated, one removes what he renovated. If he put an idol on it and removed it, it is permitted. HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of stones,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: This232The first part of the Mishnah is not only about stones quarried but about everything intentionally manufactured as an idol. Therefore if a metal statue was cast, the process of casting makes it forbidden even before it is polished and worshipped. implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This implies that if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden233A cup is an implement of worship; it is not an object of worship. The statement of R. Eleazar is stronger than that of Rav. The Babli disagrees, 52a.. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol on it234This refers to the second case in the Mishnah, where a stone quarried indifferently is adorned to become an altar.. The opinions of Rav235It seems that one has to read: R. Eleazar. seem inconsistent. There he says, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so236Why for a cup it is immediately forbidden but for a decorated stone only by actually being used in idolatry?? Explain it following what has been stated237Mishnah 4:4. It is presumed that only a Gentile would make something from the start for idolatry; the most a Jew would do is to adorn an object.: “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden, but a Jew’s when it was worshipped.” There is disagreement about an idol, maybe also for its appurtenances238In Halakhah 4:4 there is an opinion to the reverse: the idol of a Gentile becomes forbidden only by being worshipped, the Jew’s idol immediately upon acquisition or manufacture.? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is disagreement also about appurtenances239Even though Mishnah 4:4 and the corresponding baraita are formulated for idols, they are valid for all implements of idolatry. The Babli disagrees, 52a.. 240This is completely parallel to the corresponding paragraph in Halakhah 9. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol on it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two stones. But have we not stated “there are three stones”? Here temporarily, there permanently.

MISHNAH: There are three kinds of Ashera128A holy tree (Mishnah 11), which is connected to the ground and by the argument of Note 125 should be permitted as building material or fire wood.. A tree which originally was planted for idolatry is forbidden. If he cut and shaped241While the tree is still standing on the ground. A cut tree is not an Ashera. it for idolatry and it grows new shoots, one removes what grew newly. If he puts an idol under it242Under a tree not previously grown idolatry., when he makes it invalid it becomes permitted. HALAKHAH: “There are three kinds of Ashera,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he engraved engravings in it it cannot become invalidated. This is necessary: even if he removed the engravings243Even though in the second case Mishnah it is sufficient to remove everything grown after the tree was shaped for idolatry, if an engraving was made it is irrevocable even if it was obliterated.. It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry244If the grafted tree would have been used as Asherah. Babli 48a.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar245The following argument shows that one has to read: R. Simeon ben Laqish.: Only if he put an idol under it. The opinions of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seem inconsistent. There Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if he engraved engravings on it it cannot become invalidated; and we interpreted this to mean, even if he removed the engravings. And here246In the second case of the Mishnah he not only rules restrictively that an engraving is irrevocable but also leniently that shaping a tree as Asherah makes it forbidden only if an idol is placed under the tree. he says so? It is more severe with engravings. 247Dittography induced by the repetitious quote of the statements of R. Simeon ben Laqish. It was stated: If he grafted, he has to remove what he grafted. Rebbi Yannai said, only if he grafted for idolatry. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. 240,This is completely parallel to the corresponding paragraph in Halakhah 9.248Babli 48a.Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he put an idol under it. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar there are two Asherot. But have we not stated “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Here temporarily, there permanently.

MISHNAH: What is an Ashera249Where one has no information to place it in one of the categories of Mishnah 11. Babli 48a.? Any under which is an idol. Rebbi Simeon says, any which is worshipped. It happened in Sidon that they were worshipping one and there was a mound under it. Rebbi Joshua250This is a copyist’s error as shown in the Halakhah. One has to read with all other Mishnah source: R. Simeon. said to them, investigate the mound! They investigated it and found a figure in it. He told them, since they worship the figure we may permit the tree to them251The rules of Mishnaiot 13–16 do not apply to this tree. HALAKHAH: What is an Ashera? Rav Ḥisda said, They disagree in the indeterminate case249Where one has no information to place it in one of the categories of Mishnah 11. Babli 48a.. Where do we hold? If it is certain that they worship both idol and tree, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But if it is certain that they worship the idol and do not worship the tree, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But where do we hold? If it is indeterminate. Rebbi Simeon says, normally they worship both idol and tree; but the rabbis say, normally they worship the idol but do not worship the tree. And it is difficult. Rebbi Simeon disagrees with the Sages and acts in their sense252Since in the interpretation of the Halakhah, R. Simeon should have forbidden both tree and idol. But there is nothing to wonder at since R. Simeon insists that practice follow the majority rule against his own opinion, Seviˋit 9:1, Notes 35–36.!

MISHNAH: One should not sit in its shadow253It was noted earlier that idols impart “tent” impurity (Note 184). Therefore if one sits under the crown of an Ashera he is impure by the impurity of the dead. But if he sits in its shadow but not under its crown, he illegally profits from idolatry but is not impure. If he passes under an Ashera he becomes impure like anybody passing under a tent above a corpse. But walking through the shadow of an Ashera outside its crown is not considered profiting from idolatry. but if one sat he is pure. One should not pass under it and if one passed under it he is impure. If it robbed the public254It is clear from the earlier sources (Note 184) and the following Halakhah that the tent impurity generated by an idol is purely rabbinic. If the crown of the Ashera extended over a public road, the customary impurity of idols never was intended to deprive Jews from using public roads. and one passed under it, he is pure. One may sow vegetables under it in the rainy season but not in summer255In winter, the shade given by the tree inhibits the growth of the vegetables; the tree is a detriment, not a positive influence. But in summer the shade is necessary; it clearly is usufruct., but lettuce neither in summer nor in the rainy season. Rebbi Yose says not even vegetables in the rainy season since falling leaves drop down on it and become fertilizer. HALAKHAH: “One should not sit in its shadow,” etc. There256In Babylonia. they say m the name of Rav Ḥisda: Its shadow is forbidden, its half-shadow is permitted. What is its shadow and what is its half-shadow? There they say, any place where if it would fall down would touch him is its shadow, but any place where if it would fall down would not touch him is its half-shadow257It is clear that at any place not under the tree’s crown there is no question of impurity. The discussion is only about the statement that one should not sit in the Ashera’s shadow. It is now added that in the half-shadow one may sit, i. e., far enough away that if the tree fell down in the direction of the person sitting there the fallen crown would not reach the person.In the Babli, 48b, this is attributed to R. Joḥanan the Galilean. Why is its shadow forbidden? Because it is an enjoyment. But a grave is forbidden for usufruct and its shadow is permitted! But the Temple Hall is forbidden for usufruct and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai was sitting and teaching in the shadow of the Temple Hall258Babli Pesaḥim 26a. There it is argued that he could do this only because the Temple was built for its service and the Herodian Hall was 100 cubits high so that its shadow at times extended beyond the Temple Hill; it never was intended that the shadow should prevent people from being there. This disagrees with the statements here.! Therefore the reason cannot be that it is forbidden for usufruct. Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there256In Babylonia.: This implies that this impurity of the dead is not logically consistent259Since as pointed out in the next sentence, a mausoleum whose roof extends over a public road will automatically impart impurity to any Jew walking under it (and force any Cohen to make a detour to avoid passing under that roof) the rules of the Ashera cannot be deduced from the rules of the impurity of the dead. They are customary rules and as such not susceptible to logical analysis.. For otherwise if a grave were robbing the public and one passed under it one would be pure. Gamliel the Twin was supporting260In this paragraph, the second person mentioned always is the authority who in walking leans upon one of his students. A comparison with other occurrences shows that מיסתמיך ב means “was supporting” but מיסתמיך על is “leaning on.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They came to this statue. He asked him, may we pass in front of it? He said, pass by it and blind its eye261One “blinds the eye” of the idol by passing by it without taking any notice of it and the idol sees that it is not taken seriously.. Rebbi Isaac bar Mattanah was supporting Rebbi Joḥanan. They came to the statue of the city council262Greek βουλή. In Tiberias this probably was a statue of divus Tiberius. He asked him, may we pass in front of it? He said, pass by it and blind its eye. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi was supporting Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They came to the statue of Herod263In Moˋed qatan 3:7 the spelling is as here. In Berakhot 2:1 (Note 57) אהדורי, in Šeqalim 2:6 ארורא, in Midrash Shemuel 19[4], ed. Buber Note 17, הרודיס, in Yalqut Šemuel # 124 הרודוס. The last two readings “Herod” seem to be the correct one.. He told him, Naḥum the most holy man17Sanhedrin 10:6 Note 335, Megillah 1:13 (72b l. 57) 3:3 (74a l. 39); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a. passed by it and you do not want to pass by? Pass by it and blind its eye! Does this264The last sentence of the Mishnah, where R. Yose forbids planting anything. Why should the status of wilted leaves be different from broken pieces? It is not so much the statement of R. Joḥanan but the following statement that anything which cannot be repaired is permitted. Wilted leaves certainly cannot be restored. not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody216The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.. Explain it about a Jew’s idol265Which is permanently forbidden.. Does this not disagree with Rav, since Rav said, for its purpose it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted266In the Babli, 49b, this is a baraita: “A Gentile who worked on an idol with a plane, if it was for his benefit it and its shavings are permitted, for its benefit it is forbidden but the shavings are permitted. A Jew who worked on an idol with a plane, whether it was was for his or its benefit, both it and its shavings are forbidden.” Cf. Mishnah and Halakhah 16.? Again explain it about a Jew’s idol. Why does everybody stay away from it267Why does nobody ever take advantage of the permission given in the Mishnah to plant vegetables under an Ashera in the winter?? Because its dropping leaves are bad.

MISHNAH: If he took wood from it268From an Ashera tree., it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to heat an oven269A portable earthenware cone., if it was new it must be destroyed270These ovens were not finished in a kiln, they became hardened by being exposed to the fire kindled in them. Therefore a new oven would be finished by the Ashera wood; it must be destroyed., if it was old it must be cooled down. If he used it to bake bread, it is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed with other loaves, all are forbidden for usufruct271Since loaves are sold by the piece, no loaf can be considered insignificant if mixed with others. Even without the special case of loaves of bread, “the ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry” (‘Orlah 3:3, Note 116).. Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea272Where the coins are corroded and destroyed. Obviously R. Eliezer must mean not only the profit but the entire value of the forbidden loaf.. They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed. HALAKHAH: “If he took wood from it,” etc. Rav Ḥasdai said, they are disagreeing in the indeterminate case. Where do we hold? If to heat, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If to fumigate, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Where do we hold? In the indeterminate case273The Mishnah before R. Ḥasdai was not the text before us. He must have read: “If they (the pieces of wood) were mixed with others, …” Then R. Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about the value created by the wood coming from an Ashera. In this case the argument of Note 271 does not apply. Since idols are destroyed by burning (Note 106) it is obvious that their wood may be burned. If it is used to cook or bake anything, the profit comes only after the wood has been reduced to ashes and is no longer forbidden. But in fumigating the burning itself is the valuable act and is forbidden. R. Eliezer permits to bring the profit to the Dead Sea as long as it is not clear that the action was forbidden. The rabbis forbid everything as long as it is not clear that the action is permitted..

MISHNAH: If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle274Reading with the Halakhah (and Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah) כרכד, Greek κερκίς, -ίδος., it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed up with others, all are forbidden for usufruct275Same argument as in Note 271.. Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea272Where the coins are corroded and destroyed. Obviously R. Eliezer must mean not only the profit but the entire value of the forbidden loaf.. They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed. HALAKHAH: “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle,” etc. 276A somewhat truncated version of a passage in ˋOrlah3:1, Notes 77–81. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I found Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa sitting and asked him. “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state277Mishnah 5:13: “If libation wine (forbidden for usufruct by the idolatrous act) fell into a cistern (of wine), all is forbidden for usufruct. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (whom practice follows) says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine in it.” Why could the cloth not be sold except for the value of the one forbidden piece?, “it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine in it”? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy278In a society where Gentiles actually make libations to their gods it practically is impossible for Jews to buy wine from them. Therefore there is no danger that the forbidden wine would end up in the hands of a Jew. The strict rule of Mishnah 15 is not a consequence of the laws of forbidden usufruct but of the necessity to keep the forbidden items out of the hands of Jews. from the Gentile; but here people buy cloth from the Gentile.

MISHNAH: How does one make it insignificant? If he pruned dry branches, green branches, took from it a rod, or a twig, even a leaf, it became in significant279Taking anything from a holy tree in a manner which a pagan never would do turns the Ashera into a common tree.. If he planed it for its benefit it is forbidden, not for its benefit it is permitted266In the Babli, 49b, this is a baraita: “A Gentile who worked on an idol with a plane, if it was for his benefit it and its shavings are permitted, for its benefit it is forbidden but the shavings are permitted. A Jew who worked on an idol with a plane, whether it was was for his or its benefit, both it and its shavings are forbidden.” Cf. Mishnah and Halakhah 16.. HALAKHAH: “How does one make it insignificant,” etc Rav said, for his benefit, both it and its shavings are permitted; for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted. Samuel said, for its benefit both it and its shavings are forbidden, for his benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted280Cf. Note 266. In the Babli, 49b, the opinions given here as those of Rav and Samuel are reported as those of students of Rav.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for its benefit it is forbidden but its shavings are permitted.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael said, three stones next to one another and next to a Mercury1A Hermes stele, where every passer-by is supposed to add a stone to the heap covering it. Cf. Sanhedrin5:2 Note 36, Mishnah 7:12. The stele is a phallic symbol (Herodotus II 54). are forbidden, but two are permitted2If the stones are separated from the heap they do not belong to it. One starts a new heap with a triangle of stones, not with two stones.. But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden3Since the additional stones are thrown, even if they are found separately from the mound but near to it one may assume that they were thrown as homage to Mercury., what is not seen with it is permitted. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael said,” etc. Rebbi Immi said, the reason of Rebbi Ismael is because of a small Mercurius next to a large Mercurius. But the rabbis say, because of the feet of Mercurius. How large are the feet of Mercurius? 50 cubits4Within 50 cubits of the center of the heap the stones “are seen with it.” Babli 50a.. The practice of Mercurius is the following: Two stones one touching the other and the third on top of them5This does not mean that the third stone lies vertically on top of the other two since this is a very unstable arrangement. It must be that the third stone forms a triangle together with the others; then the third stone is on the altitude of the triangle which is at a right angle to, i. e. “on”, the base line.. If one put down the second one and they warned him because of “it and its young”6Lev. 22:28. The text is very elliptic here; it is explained by the following quote from Terumot.A person is starting to build a rudimentary Mercurius. When he had put down the second stone he decided to sacrifice to the yet unfinished idol and he chose for this purpose an animal and its young. As explained in Sanhedrin, a criminal conviction in rabbinic theory is possible only if criminal intent was proven by the testimony of two eye witnesses that the perpetrator had duly been warned of the criminal nature of his intended act. Also, for one act there can be only one punishment. Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple criminal infraction for which no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text. The prescribed punishment for such an act is flogging., he is whipped. Because of idolatry he is stoned7One has to read “is not stoned”. Since two stones do not make an idol, even if there was criminal intent no crime was committed.. If he put down the third8Then there is an idol and even though it is worshipped by throwing an additional stone, anything which would be part of the service in the Temple when done for an idol is a capital crime whether or not the idol is worshipped in this way.; there is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. 9This text to the end of the paragraph is from Terumot7:1 Notes 64–66; Ketubot3:1 (27c l.21). For they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young he is flogged, about idolatry he is stoned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he is cautioned about an animal and its young he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he be cautioned about idolatry. What is a Mercurius? Any which borders the ocean or roads10Indicating a landing spot on the shore or a road crossing on land.. The practice of Mercurius is by throwing. What if he bowed down before it? Rebbi Yose said, essentially is is called Mercurius only for bowing down, a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it11Lev. 26:1. The connection to be made between משׂכית and מרקוליס is not clear.. I could think that one may not put two stones next to one another and put his box down on them, the verse says to bow down on it, you do not bow down on it but you put your box down on it; you do not bow down on it but you bow down on the stones of the Temple12Babli Megillah22b; Sifra Behar Pereq9(5).. Rav commanded to the family of Rav Aḥa, Rebbi Immi commanded to his own family, if you go out on the fast day13Usually, “fast day” is one of the days of penitence called in case of a drought, as described in Tractate Ta`anit. However, since the Babli states (Ta`anit11b) in the name of Rav’s colleague R. Jeremiah bar Abba that this kind of fast day is not practiced in Babylonia, Rav’s instructions to the family of Rav Aḥa can only refer to the Fast Day, the Day of Atonement, where it is customary to prostrate oneself during the recitation of Rav’s composition Alenu at the mention that “we prostrate ourselves” and during the enactment of the Temple ceremony of the day. Cf. Note 18. you should not incline normally14Face down on the floor. The examples following refer to the daily prayers which morning and afternoon have three parts. The first, the “eighteen benedictions” are said standing, the second, “falling down on one’s face”, is said while bending down, and the third, a recitation of biblical verses, is said sitting up straight. Following the majority opinion here and the unquestioned prescription of the Babli (Megillah22b) one may not put down one’s face to the ground but must bend it sideways. This presumes that the synagogue had a stone floor (as shown by the archeological evidence in Galilee.) There would be no need to turn one’s head on a dirt floor or on carpets.. Rebbi Jonah inclined on his side; Rebbi Aḥa inclined on his side. Rebbi Samuel said, I saw Rebbi Abbahu inclining normally. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Abbahu, is it not written11Lev. 26:1. The connection to be made between משׂכית and מרקוליס is not clear., a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it. Explain it if he fixed a place for it. But is it not written152S. 15:32. A “high place” on the Mount of Olives which however had not to be destroyed since there was neither altar nor stone floor., it was when David arrived at the mountaintop where one bows down before God? Except bowing down which is not on the ground. Does there exist bowing down which is not on the ground? They fell down with their faces to the ground and bowed down162Chr.7:3.. Rebbi Abbahu added up to give thanks to the Eternal for He is good; Rebbi Mana added up to for eternal is His kindness to Israel17The additions of RR. Abahu and Mana are in the verse, except for the addition “on Israel” which are not in this verse nor in any other biblical occurrence of the formula give thanks to the Eternal for He is good, for eternal is His kindness.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, the stretching out on the Fast Day18Prostrating oneself with outstretched arms and legs. Since the only day one did this in Babylonia was the day of Atonement, it must refer to that day., and the willow of the Seventh Day19Hitting the floor with a bunch of willow twigs on the Seventh Day of the Festival of Tabernacles; an ancient custom to induce ample rains in the coming winter.. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also this blood letting20Traditions of good and bad days for blood letting.. It follows what Rebbi Immi said, the Babylonians in the name of the rabbis there: They permitted prostrating only on a public fast, and only on the side21To avoid violating Lev.26:1. These now are Babylonian instructions for the Palestinian fast days for rain which were not practiced in Babylonia.. The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his fathers: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that if he falls on his face the Holy One, praise to Him, would tell him, get up22Jos.7:10., should not fall down, in the case of an individual [praying] for the community23An individual praying in public for the relief of a public calamity may not prostrate himself unless he claims for himself a status at least equal to Joshua’s. A private person praying for private needs may prostrate himself as much and as long as he feels necessary. Babli Megillah22b in the name of R. Eleazar.. “But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden, what is not seen with it is permitted.” (What is seen with it, its body, is forbidden; what is not seen with it is permitted.)24The first time (in parentheses) the scribe mixed the Mishnah text with the intended explanation. The second time then he wrote correctly. What is seen with it4Within 50 cubits of the center of the heap the stones “are seen with it.” Babli 50a. is its body, what is not seen with it is not its body. 25A quote from Chapter 3, Notes 215 ff. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it whole it is permitted26It is clear that one has to read with the text in 3:2 “forbidden”. The argument goes as follows: Since the stones lying around a Mercurius are just pebbles, should they not be considered shards? The answer is that the pebbles can easily be put back on the mound; therefore they are forbidden. according to everybody. 25A quote from Chapter 3, Notes 215 ff. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody. 27Chapter 3, Note 71. But Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, if they were lying on their spot it is as if he would return it to its wholeness. And these are at their place28Therefore they are forbidden according to everybody.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Sometimes you are saying, broken pieces of idols cannot be nullified. And sometimes you are saying, serving pieces of idols cannot be nullified29Both versions are reported as to be stated by Rav. He who says serving pieces, certainly idols. But he who says idols, therefore not serving pieces. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rav: Mercurius stones which were scattered never can be nullified, because of worship of idols30Since the worship of Mercurius is by throwing a stone on the heap, all stones (except the core which formed it in the first place) are offerings to the idol which are permanently and irrevocably forbidden.. Rebbi Joḥanan heard it and said, our teacher taught us well, since if one bows down before an idol of (mourners)31A scribal error. Instead of שלאבלים read שֶׁלָּאֹכְלִים “of food”. they never can be nullified. How does one nullify it? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, by spit32By having a Gentile spit on some of the core stones.. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: Scattered stones of Mercurius have no nullification? Rebbi Phineas said, here those which where thrown at it; there those which were not thrown at it33As noted before, the original mound can be disassembled and its stones used; the accretions by passers-by cannot.. As this: Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi had a Mercurius on his field. He came to his burgonar34Probably a dweller or supervisor of a burgus,πυργός “tower”; cf. Chapter 1, Note 229. The conjecture of M. Sokoloff, “tenant farmer” based on an interpretation of D. Sperber (Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud and Midrashic Literature, Jerusalem 1982) of πυργός as “farm house” is not convincing. Also compare Greek πυρκαεύς. “fire-kindler” (E. G.). and told him, since I heard that the magistrate35Greek ἄρχων. wants to pass by here tomorrow, by your life lift these stones. After he36The burgonar. had lifted them, he wanted to take them away. He37R. Simeon ben Rebbi. told him, they are mine. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba heard this and said, did not the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya state this33As noted before, the original mound can be disassembled and its stones used; the accretions by passers-by cannot.? But since he had heard it from him, he reinforced38R. H.I.D. Azulay reports (ככר לאדן) a ms. reading חזר “he repeated”. and fixed it39He publicized what he had done in order to fix practice following R. Hiyya in the interpretation of R. Phineas..

MISHNAH: If one found on top of it41Of a Mercurius mound. coins, garments, or vessels, they are permitted42Since only stones are offerings to the Mercurius. There is a dissenting opinion in Tosephta 6:13 which forbids coins found on the top stone.. Branches of vine43Greek φραγέλλιον “twig”., wreaths of ears of grain, wines, oils, and fine flours, and anything similar to what is offered on the altar44Anything of a kind acceptable for the altar in the Temple is forbidden if offered to any pagan deity even if the latter is not usually worshipped in this way. Cf. Sanhedrin7:11, Note 239. is forbidden. HALAKHAH: “If one found coins on top of it,” etc. Rebbi Jonathan said, not only wreaths of ears of grain but even wreaths of roses45Which are forbidden as ornaments and also because they are used in Isis worship.. Rebbi Yose said, not only a Mercurius and on top of it coins but even any pagan place which has no lattice work46Which separates the area reserved for priests from that of common worshippers, where everything is forbidden as appurtenances of idols (Chapter 2 Note 219, Chapter 3 Note 132). If no such separation exists, nothing is reserved for the idol except what is on it. The Babli has the opposite rule, 51b. and he found in it garments or vessels, they are permitted.

MISHNAH: If an idol had a garden or a bath house, one may benefit from them not with a favor47One does “a favor” either by paying or by incurring a debt of gratitude, i. e., the other party accumulates goodwill which obliges one to reciprocate on occasion. but one may not benefit with a favor. If it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor48Since one may credit the third party with either income or goodwill. As implied by the Halakhah, direct payments to a pagan temple are always excluded.. HALAKHAH: “If an idol had a garden,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A favor to the priests or without a favor to the priests49Babli 51b.. 50Tosephta 6:1.“It is forbidden to sell51In the Tosephta: “to use for dirges.” Since a rental fee is mentioned, “rent” is the reading which is required here also. fifes of idols, but if one pays the rental fee to the state if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to sell51In the Tosephta: “to use for dirges.” Since a rental fee is mentioned, “rent” is the reading which is required here also. them52As stated at the end of the Halakhah, since the state will take its cut and not spend all the money for idolatry, one may suggest that the Jew’s money is income for the state. This is valid for all cases in the Tosephta.. It is forbidden to rent a store from a pagan temple, but if one pays rent to the state even if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to rent it. It is forbidden to give to collectors for idol worship. If he pays a fee to the state even though he collects for idol worship it is permitted to give to him.” And the Mishnah said so, “if it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor.”

MISHNAH: A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden53Immediately when it was made since its manufacture is part of its worship. but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped54Since he is not supposed to do it there is a chance that he will not worship it.. A Gentile is able to annul his idol and that of a Jew; but a Jew cannot annul the idol of a Gentile55“To annul” an idol is to treat it in a way inconsistent with veneration, such as breaking off a piece. If the Gentile does this he transforms the idol into a piece of art which is permitted for usufruct. A Jew can do this to his own idol as part of his repentance but since he is under the obligation to destroy pagan idols without obtaining any gain he cannot transform Gentile objects forbidden for usufruct into those permitted for usufruct.. If one annulled an idol he annulled its appurtenances; if he annulled its appurtenances the appurtenances are annulled but it is forbidden. HALAKHAH: “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah speaks about an artist who works to sell it on the market. When he finishes it, it is a sure thing that he bows down before it. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is a sure thing that he bows down before it, why did we state “a Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped56If he works for the trade and an idol is worth more if it was worshipped then there is no reason to exempt a Jewish-made idol from immediate prohibition.”? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If one cuts an idol in stone, even though you say that nothing connected to the ground is forbidden, one warns him on every single chiseling and when it will be separated from the rock he will be flogged57While in modern Hebrew קורנס is a sledge hammer, and some dictionaries define it as a mallet, neither etymology nor meaning are clear. (In Arabic قرناس is “the back of an axe, mountain ridge”.) The sentence is not intelligible, but the Babli (19b) seems to disagree since it notes that an incomplete idol will not be worshipped and therefore has no commercial value in the idol trade; therefore it is the last application of the hammer or chisel which confers the status of idol.. Rebbi Yose said, from this you understand that if somebody makes a statue for idol worship, even though you say that nothing breathing can be forbidden, one warns him about each single mallet58It is not a logical consequence. The Tosephta, 5:3, notes that it is a logical consequence of the opposite opinion. If the idol made by a Jew is immediately forbidden even if he did not worship it then it follows that he cannot annul it (except maybe by melting it down) but the Gentile whose idol becomes forbidden only if worshipped can annul an idol by an act of non-worship. and he will be flogged when it is finished59Deut. 12:20.. “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” therefore it can be annulled. “But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” therefore it cannot be annulled. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is no “therefore”58It is not a logical consequence. The Tosephta, 5:3, notes that it is a logical consequence of the opposite opinion. If the idol made by a Jew is immediately forbidden even if he did not worship it then it follows that he cannot annul it (except maybe by melting it down) but the Gentile whose idol becomes forbidden only if worshipped can annul an idol by an act of non-worship., only “it cannot be annulled or it can be annulled”. “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” as it is written59Deut. 12:20.: you certainly shall destroy.“But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” as it is written60Deut. 27:15. The argument is from the later part of the verse, cursed be the man who would make a hewn or molten image and put it up in secret. As long as it is not put up there is no curse. The Babli, 52a, reads the verse as stating that the curse applies when the idol is made., cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, etc., when he puts it up. But some are switching this61Tosephta 5:4.. “A Jew’s idol is immediately forbidden,” for it is written, cursed be the man. “But a Gentile’s only when it was worshipped,” as it is written59Deut. 12:20., you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel understood it from the following: If you inherited it when it was a god you shall burn it in fire62This probably should be a quote of Deut. 7:25., otherwise of which you will inherit their gods63The full verse reads: you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped, whom you are going to inherit, their gods. By taking only a fraction of the verse it is turned into permission to inherit the statues of the gods. This implies that if the Gentiles do not consider them as gods any more, the prohibition of usufruct is lifted.. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai understood it from the following: You should not covet silver or gold for them64` Deut. 8:25. If the Gentiles covet their silver and gold, you may take it. In the Babli, 52a, is a similar argument. Samuel reads the verse, do not covet silver or gold for them and take for yourself as: you may not covet silver or gold for them but you may be permitted to take for yourself.. You cannot covet and take, but others can covet and you are taking. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Bar Drosai, go down and break all those statues in the public baths65Greek δημόσιον (βαλανεῖον) public (government run) bath.. He went down and broke them all except one66Greek παρά. For this use of the word cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, On the Talmudic Vocabulary12–15, Lešonenu 39(1975) pp. 62–69.. Why this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because another67One might read אחד “one” instead of אחר “another.” Jew was suspected of burning incense for it. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: 68Babli 52b, where, however, it is accepted that Rebbi in his advanced age changed his opinion. Rebbi was sitting and teaching his son69Reading בְּרֵהּ “his son” instead of inappropriate בָּמָה “height, altar” or בַּמֶּה “why?”. Rebbi Simeon. The Gentile annuls his own idol and that of his neighbor. He said to him, when you still were in full mental powers you quoted Tannaןm stating that a Gentile annuls his own idol and that of a Jew. He answered him, no, my son. An idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled. And it was stated so: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, an idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled.”70Babli 53a; as anonymous text Tosephta 5:3. Rav stated in the name of 71A name is missing here. the reason of this Tanna: Cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, forever60Deut. 27:15. The argument is from the later part of the verse, cursed be the man who would make a hewn or molten image and put it up in secret. As long as it is not put up there is no curse. The Babli, 52a, reads the verse as stating that the curse applies when the idol is made.. 72Another version of the same story is in the Babli, 43a, leading to essentially the same conclusions. Bar Qappara found a ring with an idol. An Aramean youth was running after him. He was hitting him73Bar Qappara the Gentile youth., cursing him, and told him, spit on it! He did not accept. Urinate on it! He did not accept. This implies that a Non-Jew annuls his own and another person’s idols under duress, on condition that he know the nature of this idol. An idol which had been worshipped by a Jew can never be annulled74This sentence does not seem to fit into the context here. It is not totally excluded that the translation should be: An idol which had been worshipped, a Jew can never annul.. Could it not be like an idol which was abandoned by its worshippers and by that being annulled75Mishnah 6.? Rebbi Ze`ira said, anything which becomes annulled by itself, a Jew can annul. But anything which does not become annulled by itself, a Jew cannot annul76If the ring had been abandoned, by this fact it would become permitted for usufruct. Then the Jew could eliminate the idolatry aspect either by defacing it or by melting it down. But if the ring was lost and the owner did not realize his loss, he could not abandon it and it remains forbidden for all usufruct unless a Gentile treat it with contempt.. Rav said, a pedestal77Cf. Chapter 3:10, Note 231. is not annulled78If the pedestal was made especially for an idol, removing the idol does not automatically make the pedestal permitted for usufruct. This implies that the pedestal is treated not as an appurtenance of the idol but as a separate idol.. Therefore if one annulled it it is annulled79In the Babli, 53b, this is the opinion of the Galilean authorities R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, opposed by Rav and Samuel.. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There he says80Halakhah 3:10. Since Rav deduces from the statement of the Mishnah about stones used for a pedestal rules about appurtenances of idols it follows that he treats the pedestal as an appurtenance., if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so? Here if he burned incense, there if he did not burn incense81A pedestal which was not used as an altar is an appurtenance; if it was used as an altar it is an idol.. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden82Obviously this quote cannot be correct since it was the basis of the question raised; one must refer here to the statement of R. Abba in the name of Rav in Halakhah 3:10: “This implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden.” The difference is whether the stone was quarried or the tree felled for the purpose of building a pedestal for idolatry or whether the material was bought on the market.. Rav said, a pedestal is not annulled. Therefore its appurtenances are annulled. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There83This refers to Mishnah 6, pedestal erected by the Augustales, the priests of the worship of the Emperor, for a visit of the Emperor in the region. If the Emperor did not pass by a certain pedestal it is permitted without being disassembled. The statement of Rav Sheshet is not otherwise recorded. Babli 53b. Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav, if the procession was using another way, and here he says so? There if he burned incense, here if he did not burn incense. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden82Obviously this quote cannot be correct since it was the basis of the question raised; one must refer here to the statement of R. Abba in the name of Rav in Halakhah 3:10: “This implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden.” The difference is whether the stone was quarried or the tree felled for the purpose of building a pedestal for idolatry or whether the material was bought on the market.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a stele is a monolith, an altar has many stones84Babli 53b. In the Babli, instead of maṣseba one uses βωμός, not consistent with the use of the term in the Yerushalmi.. This change in terminology is not usually recognized in the talmudic Dictionaries.. Ḥizqiah said, a stele is annulled once it is damaged; of an altar one has to damage each single stone. A baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him: If you tore down the altar, leave it alone; if you broke the stele, leave it alone 85The terminology is taken from Deut. 12:3.. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia; Rebbi Ḥiyya (Rebbi)86Read בר for ר׳. The tradent is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. Abba, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav Hoshaia: When He turns all stones of the altar like smashed pieces of chalk87Is. 27:9. In the Babli, 54a, this is Ḥizqiah’s baraita; probably here also this is the statement which contradicts his earlier statement that simple damage, not complete annihilation, permits maṣsebot and altars for usufruct., persecute them until you eliminated its egg from the world. But here, if you broke a stele, leave it alone; if you tore down an altar, leave it alone88Divine vengeance is different from rules prescribed for humans.. It is written89Lev. 26:1., do not make idols for yourselves, statue and stele you shall not erect for yourselves. Is not making the same as erecting? Rebbi Hila said, making is from new; erecting, if it falls down one shall not re-erect it. It is written90Deut. 12:3. The verse continues, their statues you shall cut down., you shall tear down their altars and break their steles. From where to apply one to the other? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, it was said to refer to both sides; either breaking, or cutting down, or tearing down for each of them.

MISHNAH: How does one annul it91An idol or one of its appurtenances.? If he cut off the top of its earlobe, the tip of its nose, the tip of its finger. If he disfigured it even though nothing is missing92E. g., by denting the statue with a hammer so that nothing is missing., he annulled it. If he spat in its face, urinated before it, dragged it, threw excrement on it, this is not annulled.93Only permanent damage is acceptable. If he sold or mortgaged it, Rebbi says it is annulled, but the Sages say it is not annulled. HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace93Only permanent damage is acceptable.. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king94Is. 8:21. The Babli uses the same verse as a reason for which a contemptuous treatment of an idol is not an annulment; 53a. etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith95The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and Rav is formulated in the Babli (53a) about whether the idol is sold to a Jewish or a Gentile goldsmith, without exact attribution of authorship.. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute96It is not spelled out what they are referring to. The next sentence makes this clear.. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled97The decision follows R, Joḥanan and the goldsmith must be a Jew who will melt down the idol..

MISHNAH: An idol which was abandoned by its worshippers in times of peace is permitted, in times of war is forbidden97The decision follows R, Joḥanan and the goldsmith must be a Jew who will melt down the idol.. Pedestals of kings are permitted since they put them up when the kings pass by98This is a temporary situation; as soon as the Emperor has departed, the pedestal has lost its mission; cf. Note 83.. HALAKHAH: “An idol which was abandoned by its worshippers,” etc. It was stated: The war of Joshua is forbidden, similar to the war of Joshua is permitted. The war of David is permitted, like the war of David is forbidden. The war of Joshua is forbidden, as it is written99Deut. 20:17. This verse is quoted as justification of the first statement, that idols captured in the wars of Joshua were forbidden., for certainly you should ban them. Similar to the war of Joshua is permitted, for it is a short time100Idols conquered in a war of limited duration are temporarily forbidden until it is ascertained after the war that no worshippers returned, as in the war of Joshua where in theory all Canaanites were killed (Deut. 20:16).. The war of David is permitted, what Itai from Gat annulled101Since David had Gentile mercenaries in his army, they immediately could annul all idols and articles of pagan worship which then became of use (Chapter 3:3 Note 108).. Like the war of David is forbidden, for it is permanent102If a war is not ended with a peace but with an indefinite truce, the preceding arguments are not applicable..

MISHNAH: The Elders were asked in Rome, if He does not approve of idol worship, why does He not eliminate it? They answered, if they would worship something which the world does not need, He would eliminate it. But they worship sun and moon, stars and planets, mountains and hills. Should He destroy His world because of the stupid? They told them, if it is so, He should eliminate things which are not needed in the world, and keep things necessary for the world. They answered, then we would strengthen the worshippers of the latter who would say, you should know that these are divinities since those were eliminated and these were not eliminated. HALAKHAH: “The Elders were asked in Rome,” etc. If somebody stole seeds and sowed, would it not grow in the end? If somebody sleeps with a married woman, would he not in the end cause a bastard to be born? But let the world continue its usual way. The stupid who misbehave will in the future have to account for their deeds. Rebbi Ze`ira said, if it were written, “like them should be their worshippers”, that would be difficult; the sun’s worshippers like the sun, the moon’s worshippers like the moon103To compare people to sun and moon would be praise.? But, like them should be their makers104Ps. 115:8. This clearly refers to idols and their makers.. Rebbi Mana said, if it were written, “like them should be their worshippers”, it would not be difficult, as it is written105Is. 24:23., the moon will be ashamed and the sun abashed. Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the future, an idol will come, spit in the face of its worshippers, make them ashamed, and disappear from the world. What is the reason? All worshippers of statues will be ashamed106Ps.97:7. This homily ends the part of the Tractate devoted to idols.. Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the future, an idol will come, bow down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and disappear from the world. What is the reason? Bow down before Him, all gods106Ps.97:7. This homily ends the part of the Tractate devoted to idols..

MISHNAH: One may buy a used wine-press from a Non-Jew107Since it is stated later in the Mishnah that grape juice becomes wine only when it is collected in the cistern below the wine press, a wine press used by a Gentile does not have to be cleansed from the remainders of the Gentile’s pressing before being used by the Jew to make kosher wine.. Even if he108This now starts a new topic. The Gentile may help the Jew to load the grapes into the wine press even if the grapes are already oozing juice.. takes it in his hands and puts it on the pile109“The apple” or “the swollen”. Any heap of organic material is called by this expression, so also the heap of ashes at the center of the altar in the Temple courtyard. Here it denotes the heap of grapes to be pressed.. It does not become libation wine until it flows down into the cistern. If it flowed into the cistern110The place where the juice flowing from the wine press is collected. As Rashi points out, European wine presses are not built over cisterns; there the place of the cistern is taken by the barrel into which the juice is collected.If the Gentile touches the fluid in the cistern, the contents of the cistern become forbidden, the fluid still in the press is permitted. The status of the fluid in the pipe leading from press to cistern has to be discussed in the Halakhah., what is in the cistern is forbidden and the remainder in permitted. HALAKHAH: “One may buy a used wine-press,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanin stated: Only if the Jew did not turn his eyes away from him111The Gentile can help in preparing the harvest for pressing only if at all times a Jew sees him so one is sure that he does not touch the cistern or any storage barrels of grape juice. Quoted in Tosaphot 55b, Roqeaḥ #495, Raviah # 1096, Mordekhai #845, Rosh (Note 113).. But if he turned his eyes away from him, not then. So far if he112The Gentile. was taking juice and grapes together to put on the heap. If he gave these and those separately, (even from what was left in the fissures, what is under the bunches is forbidden, on the sides is permitted.)113The reading of Rosh (Avodah zarah4, #50) in the version of R. Lipman Heller Wallerstein and R. ḤID Azulai seems preferable:הָיָה נוֹתֵן אֵילּוּ בִפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵילּוּ בִפְנֵי עַצְמָן אֲפִילוּ כֵןמוּתָּר. גוֹמָמִיוֹת שֶׁתַּחַת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת.שֶׁבְּצִידֵּיהֶן הֵן אֲסוּרוֹת.“If he gave these and those separately, even so it is permitted. The fissures under the bunches are permitted, on the sides they are forbidden.”If the grapes are harvested into a vat, if the entire vat is emptied into the wine press one does not care if juice already oozed from the grapes since this is part of the pressing process. If the grapes are taken out of the vat and then the fluid is poured into the press separately, this also is acceptable. But if then some fluid is left in the fissures between the wooden planks which form the walls of the vat, it is grape juice in a separate vessel which is no different from a barrel standing under the pipe through which the juice flows from press to cistern; any touch by the Gentile will turn it into forbidden libation wine. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Itself it becomes libation wine114He objects to making a difference between places where some juice is left; any juice left in the vat has the same status as juice in the cistern.. A wine press on which a Gentile stopped a leak from the inside is forbidden, from the outside permitted, for it is impossible that there not be wet bast where he touches and turns the entire cistern into libation wine115If the wine press were completely dry, there would be no difference whether the Gentile plugs the leak from the inside or the outside. But if it is moist, the bast which he uses to plug the leak retains some wine which then turns the wine press into a vessel like vat and cisterns, and the Gentile’s touch forbids the wine. But from the outside it never can be considered inside a vessel.. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern116Babli 55b. The case of the conduit from wine press to cistern which was not treated in the Mishnah is decided: The moment when a drop of grape juice passes the filter at the bottom of the press and enters the pipe leading to the cistern it turns into wine.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere117The basic text is Mishnah Ṭahorot8:8 which states that any flow downwards is no connection for impurity while standing fluid on a level surface is. Babli 72a. you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine118In these matters, any defect is transferred upwards but not downwards.; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine119If the flow was cut off and prevented from reaching the cistern.. Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing120A libation consists of shaking the wine as an homage to the gods. Therefore if the touch of the Gentile did not move the wine from its position at rest, no libation was made.. An Aramean fell into a cavity. The case came before Rebbi Huna who said, immobilize him121Since libation wine is created by a Gentile moving the wine, the Non-Jew has to be immobilized until the cistern is emptied. until you have emptied the cavity. Rebbi Ḥanina said, he is moving his hand. He said, bring willow baskets and approach from under his hand122Hebrew and Aramaic זלף means “to sprinkle” (Note 161). This does not make any sense here. The word is Arabic زلف “to approach, advance toward”. One brings baskets or mats of willow weave and approaches his arms from below so that his hands are in the air above the wine and cannot move the wine.. Simeon bar Ḥiyya was instructing Ḥiyya bar Rav. Starting when does a Gentile make libation wine123This seems to be a question which Ḥiyya bar Rav asked Simeon bar Ḥiyya.? He told him, from when he knows the nature of idol worship. (Rav Joshia left) [Rav put out his head]124The translation [in brackets] follows the argument of S. Lieberman (Hayerushalmi Kiphshuto New York 1995, p. 226) that one has to read not אפיק רב יאשיה but אפיק רב ראשיה as in Eruvin1:1, 18d line 33. from the curtain and told him, you may say this if one buys grapes from the Gentile. But the Gentile proper makes libation wine when he is one day old125Babli 57a, where Simeon bar Ḥiyya actively opposes Rav. Rav admits the leniency only for grape juice flowing from grapes in a vat. But in this case, even an adult Gentile was admitted as help. The leniency applies only to the juice left in the vat after it was emptied of grapes, cf. Note 113.. May a Gentile make libation wine with his mouth? Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Gentile cannot make libation wine with his mouth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile can make libation wine with his mouth. And we have stated thus: “If a market supervisor126This should read אגרנימוס Greek ἀγορανόμος “market supervisor”. tasted from a cup or from a suction pipe127To check the quality of the wine, whetrher the customer would not be overcharged. and returned128The remainder of the wine. to the amphora it is forbidden.” In the opinion of Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, only if the Gentile returned it129Since they hold that the motion of the wine induced by the overseer’s mouth cannot make libation wine, if the Gentile returned it to the amphora he causes waves in the wine which makes it libation wine forbidden for usufruct.. In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, even if a Jew returned129aFor him the wine drawn by the overseer is libation wine in all cases; the person who returns the wine to the amphora will make it forbidden in all cases..

MISHNAH: One may stamp with a Non-Jew in the wine press130The grapes are pressed not by a mechanical device but by people stamping on a wooden plank on top of the grapes. All the wine produced is libation wine forbidden for all usufruct. Therefore one could think that a Jew would be forbidden to receive wages for pressing the grapes. But it was explained in the preceding Halakhah that the grape juice turns into wine only by flowing into the cistern below the press. Therefore the Jew may receive wages for pressing the grapes whose juice will not be forbidden at the moment of pressing. but one may not harvest with him131This Tanna is of the opinion that it is forbidden to cause impurity to fruits of the Holy Land. Since the grapes become impure by being handled by the Non-Jew, a Jewish agricultural worker observing the rules of purity may not help in the Non-Jew’s harvest (cf. Berakhot1:1, Note 3 and Introduction to Tractate Demay p. 349–350).. With a Jew who works in impurity132Working at a time when it was still possible to follow the rules of impurity, a Jew making his wine in impurity was a sinner since he caused his heave and tithes (which are biblical obligations for grain, olive oil, and grape wine) to be impure and therefore forbidden to be consumed by the Cohen. Grapes harvested for wine making are placed in a vat for transport to the wine press. The fluid oozing out of injured grape berries are collected in the vat and also used for making wine. This fluid is welcome; therefore it prepares the grapes for impurity as explained in Demay2:3 Notes 136,137, 141. An observant Jew harvesting together with an unobservant one is guilty of helping to cause impurity to fruits of the Land. There really is no intrinsic reason to forbid pressing the grapes which already are impure; the prohibition to help in pressing is a general rule “not to support sinners”. one neither stamps nor harvests with him but one transports with him amphoras to the wine press and brings with him from the wine press133Transporting empty amphoras to the wine press is not connected with any impropriety; it is not even forbidden to fill impure wine into pure amphoras which thereby will become impure. Transporting amphoras filled with impure wine from the wine press is permitted since all forbidden action was in the past.. HALAKHAH: “One may stamp with a Non-Jew in the wine press,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, you say only if they walked over it crosswise134Since Gentiles are considered impure under the rules of a sufferer from gonorrhea (Babli 36b), the moment a Gentile steps on the planks on top of the grapes everything is impure by “stepping on” (Chapter 3:8, Note 181). It is not really necessary that the Gentile walk on the plank in two different directions. Since then the entire contents of the wine press are impure: the Jew does not help to make them impure.. But if they did not walk over it crosswise, it does not apply. Rebbi Yose asked, if they walked over it crosswise, even following the earlier teaching135There seems to be no reason for R. Jonah’s rule since the entire harvest becomes impure at harvest time, Note 132. There never should be any reason not to press grapes with a Gentile.? As it was stated:136Tosephta 7:1, Babli 55b. “Originally they were saying that one harvests grapes with the Non-Jew and stamps with a Jew who works in impurity137In both sources, one reads: “Originally they were saying that one does not harvest grapes with the Non-Jew and does not stamp with a Jew who works in impurity.” This text must be supposed also for the quote here. If one holds that it is forbidden to cause impurity to the fruits of the Land then one may not harvest with the Gentile because this is the moment when the grapes become impure.. They changed and said, one does not harvest grapes with the Non-Jew nor stamp with a Jew who works in impurity, but one stamps with a Gentile and helps him as long as it did not disappear from sight. Once it disappeared from sight it became libation wine138The second part of this baraita parallels the Mishnah; it is missing in the Tosephta. In the Babli text it reads “one does not stamp with the Non-Jew”; this is explained as a precaution because if the Gentile has a small harvest and decided to make red wine by leaving the skins in the fluid, the easiest way would be to plug the pipe leading to the cistern and use the press itself to let the wine ferment. Then the act of pressing makes libation wine and the Jew’s wages would be forbidden for usufruct. The Yerushalmi very reasonably does not consider this a possibility.”. What is Rebbi Jonah’s reason? Because it already became impure when it was prepared by the grape harvest139As explained before, this is R. Yose’s argument.. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? They were pure by biblical standards. You are the one who decided that they be impure140This is R. Jonah’s argument. There is no biblical impurity for Gentiles; the laws of impurity are uniquely formulated for Jews. The imputation of impurity (permanent and irrevocable) for Gentiles is rabbinical (Babli 36b). The exclusion of Gentiles from the Temple precinct is not because of impurity but because of their being disqualified.. The strength of Rebbi Yose is the following, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Hila141The source of this statement (in another context) is Ḥallah3:2, Note 53. It should be logical that one may (free)142This text makes no sense either by itself nor in this context. Ṭevel is produce under the obligation of heave from which heave was not yet taken; it may not be consumed. By all standards a person is not only permitted but obligated to free his ṭevel by separating the heave. The text in Ḥallah correctly reads: “a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards.” The main point of the argument is given there but omitted here. Heave not only must be consumed in purity but it is stated in Num. 18:8 that the priests have a special duty to guard heave from impurity. It follows that this duty does not apply to ṭevel, which therefore may be allowed to become impure; disagreeing with the hypothesis underlying the Mishnah. The quote here refers to a different subject. Heave given to Aaron in his quality of priest is pure heave for which he can exercise his duty to watch it and consume it in purity. But once produce has incurred even a doubt of impurity it can no longer be consumed by the Cohen; this eliminates not only the duty of guarding it but all rules made to safeguard it. If the rules of purity no longer can be observed there remain no restrictions on harvesting and pressing grapes with a Gentile. his ṭevel as it is written, you should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest143Num. 18:27.. You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest. But here, since you cannot give it to Aaron the priest in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

MISHNAH: If a baker works in impurity one does not knead with him144For kneading one must wet the flour; this prepares it for impurity and, in an impure bakery, makes the dough impure. nor form the bread with him145The dough already is impure when it is formed; this prohibition falls under the general prohibition “to support sinners.”, but one may bring bread to the seller146Greek πρατήρ (Buxtorf) or πωλητήρ (Krauss) “seller”. with him147Since the bread is fully baked, transporting it is not “to support sinners.”. HALAKHAH: “If a baker works in impurity,” etc. One states about this: One does not moisten, nor grind, nor mix with him148One either moistens the grain before grinding to facilitate the separation of chaff from flour or one washes the grain before grinding to eliminate impurities such as pebbles. In any case will the moistening make the grain susceptible to impurity. Even if the grain was dry milled, moistening the flour to make dough will bring on the impurity. Only grinding itself is solely forbidden not “to support sinners.”. 149From here on this is taken from Ševi`it5:9 (Notes 92–97)7, 4:3 (Notes 52–57)*7.Instead of the baraita quoted here, one states in Ševi`it: “One should neither cull nor grind nor sift with him.” These are all done dry when the grain still may be immune to impurity. The question is to explain when each of the baraitot applies. Rebbi Hila said, here for profane [bread], there for heave. Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues: one if he moistens, the other if he does not moisten150Since it has been established that the Cohen has the duty to guard his heave, he has to bake his heave bread himself or at least have it baked under his strict supervision; he is forbidden to hand it over to a commercial baker. The explanation of the colleagues is the only acceptable one. Quoted in Tosaphot Giṭtin61a/b s.v. רישא.. But did we not state151Mishnah Ševi`it5:9, speaking of an observant woman baking together with one who does not observe the rules of purity.: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in because one does not support transgressors.” Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Immi. One said152This explains the last sentence in Mishnah Ševi`it5:9 that one encourages Gentiles in the Sabbatical and that one greets Gentiles for communal peace. What is the difference between encouraging and greeting?, “plough it well; then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said, “may you succeed.” For him who said, plough it well; then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical, what means “one greets them”? “May you succeed.153This is the greeting of Gentiles endorsed by the Babli, Giṭtin62a.” But he who said that one says to a Gentile, may you succeed, what means that one greets Jews154The text of Ševi`it5:9 is more convincing: One greets Gentiles in the same way one greets Jews.? “Peace be on you.” Explanation155Greek δήλωμα.. Rebbi Ḥanina bar Pappa and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman passed by one of the ploughmen in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said to him, may you succeed. Rebbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said to him, did not Rebbi teach, the passers-by did not say156Ps.129:8., etc., that it is forbidden to say “may you succeed” to one who ploughs in the Sabbatical? He told him, you know how to read but you do not know how to make a homily. The passers-by did not say, these are the nations who pass out of the world because they did not say to Israel, the blessing of the Eternal is on you. What does Israel say to them? We bless you in the name of the Eternal. Israel says to them, all the good things and happy circumstances that come into the world because of us are not enough for you; you do not say, come and take from these blessings for yourselves, but you roll over us pro-rated contributions157Aramaic and Syriac פיסא “piece”, here used in the sense of individual contribution to a tax imposed on the community (I. Löw). and fines158Greek ζημία., head taxes and annonae159The annual contributions in kind for the upkeep of the Roman army.. Rebbi Immi instructed: It is forbidden to take the bread out of the oven with him160The baker who works in impurity. The scribe in Ševi`it5:9 started to write this sentence, then he noticed that there it makes no sense. This determines Avodah zarah as origin of the preceding paragraph.. Similarly, it is forbidden to sprinkle with him161Moisten baking goods. It would be possible to translate “to load (the oven)”; cf. Note 122..

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who was found standing next to a wine cistern, if he has a loan secured by it162The Jewish owner’s wine is mortgaged to a Gentile. Then it may be assumed that the Gentile touched the wine, which makes the wine forbidden for the Jew. The Gentile may take the wine as repayment of the loan., [the wine] is forbidden, if he has no loan secured by it, it is permitted. If he fell into the cistern and climbed out, or measured it with a measuring rod; if he tried to hit a wasp with a stick163The stick did not hit the wasp but the wine in the amphora. This certainly is not libation wine but it was hit if not by the Gentile so by the force of his arm; the wine is forbidden as drink but permitted for usufruct., or was drumming on the mouth of a fermenting amphora164There is a distinct possibility that the Gentile touched the foam on the mouth of the amphora. This is not a way of making libations.; all these cases happened and they said, it should be sold165To Gentiles since the wine is forbidden as drink but permitted for usufruct., but Rebbi Simeon permits. If he took the amphora and threw it into the cistern;166In a rage; there is no libation. this happened and they declared it kosher167Even to drink... HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was found standing,” etc. Rab Sheshet in the name of Rav: Only if he has a lien on this particular cistern168The Mishnah could be read as applying to a loan secured by all wine in the possession of the debtor. It is now asserted that in the opinion of Rav (in the Babli, 60b, of Samuel) only the holder of a lien on the particular cistern will consider the wine his property and therefore touch it without hesitation whereas a lender on a future harvest will only visit wine press and threshing floor to ascertain that the harvest is sufficient to secure his claim but he will not touch the produce or the wine since it is not his. In the Babli, this is the only opinion declared consistent with the following Mishnaiot; the discussion in the Yerushalmi shows that the opposing opinion is considered equally valid.. But if he has no lien on this particular cistern, it is the way of creditors to stand near wine presses and threshing floors. They wanted to say, he who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms169The definition of “next to” is “within reach of his hands without moving his body.” This is the definition accepted for the distance in which a person not following the rules of impurity makes vessels and food impure by his presence (Mishnah Ṭahorot7:3)., but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, even outside his outstretched arms170Since he is more restrictive than the first opinion, one may assume that he is more restrictive in this matter also.. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet171Halakhah 5:6 (45a l. 1)., just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be so: He who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, only outside his outstretched arms172The definition of “next to” is independent of the circle of persons to which it is applied. In all circumstances, “next to” means what can be reached without moving one’s body.. “One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. 177This Halakhah in its entirety refers to Mishnah 11, not Mishnah 12. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Simeon178Who in Mishnah 11 permitted to drink wine which the Sages only permitted for usufruct. This tradition is quoted in the Babli 60b but in the end rejected.. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel. I am atoning for Rebbi Simeon179This is an expression traditionally used by the son speaking of his father. He considers himself the spiritual son of R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai)., either permit to drink or forbid for usufruct180R. Simeon holds that any wine not forbidden for usufruct is not forbidden as drink.. Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. There was a case and they permitted for drinking following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile does not make libation wine by throwing181If the Gentile never touched the wine but moved it by throwing the bottle in which it was stored, he cannot possibly have made it into libation wine. Quoted in Tosaphot 59a/b s. v. מהו.. Does a Gentile make libation wine in his rage? Let us hear from the following: An Aramean182A Gentile, cf. Halakhah 1:6, Note 177. had boxes in a wine press. There came a Jew and sprinkled wine on them. The Aramean came183It might be better to read אַייָתִי “brought” instead of אֲתַא “came”. [with] a pitcher and poured it out into the cistern. The case came before the rabbis who said, a Gentile does not make libation wine in his rage. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. One who mixes wine, with hot water it is forbidden, with cold water it is permitted. It should come over me, if I ever did this184He never let a Gentile pour water in his cup of wine.. Rebbi Yasa went to Tyre185In the Babli 58b a similar story is told of R. Jeremiah himself. The problem with the text here is that R. Yasa was one of the teachers of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, the teacher of R. Jeremiah’s teacher R. Ze`ira.. He saw them drinking wine with hot water and an Aramean was mixing. He told them, what186“What”, not “who”. He made it clear that he did not think that any rabbi would allow this. did allow you?

MISHNAH: One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity173The Jew uses a Gentile’s winery to make kosher wine to sell the wine to Jews. and leaves it in his domain, in a house open to the public domain174Where the public has open access. If a Jew saw the Gentile near the wine, he could not anymore sell the wine to Jews. Since this would be costly to him, one may assume that the minor oversight provided by the occasional Jewish visitor is sufficient. in a city where there are Gentiles and Jews it is permitted, in a city where all are Gentiles it is forbidden unless he install there a watchman. But the watchman does not have to sit there and watch; even if he leaves and reenters it is permitted175On condition that he not tell anybody when he would leave or come back.. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, all Gentiles’ domains are the same176There is no difference between the owner’s property or that of any other Gentile in this matter..One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity173The Jew uses a Gentile’s winery to make kosher wine to sell the wine to Jews. and leaves it in his domain187Without a guard., if this one writes to him that I received the money, it is permitted188Since the Gentile has recognized the wine as the Jew’s property he will not touch it and expose himself to a suit for damages.. But if the Jew wants to remove it and he does not let him do it before he paid him his money189The Gentile shows that he considers the wine his property until the rental fee for his wine press and wine cellar was paid. This makes the wine Gentile and forbidden., this was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages forbade. HALAKHAH: “One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. 190This Halakhah discusses Mishnah 12.Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Not only a door but even a window wide four by four and high ten191Since the numerals are masculine they denote hand-breadths, not quite 10cm. An opening of 4-by-4 and high 10 is considered a door also for the rules of impurity., on condition that it be roofed and glued closed192Not the door but the amphora in which the wine is stored. It cannot be left open in the Gentile’s place under any circumstances but must have a cover, “be roofed”, and the cover must be glued to the amphora by clay which is left to dry. Then it is sufficient that an occasional visitor check that the clay seal is inviolate.. If it was growing, we would say if he is seen climbing up and coming down it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted193If the wine is stored on a tree (a seemingly unlikely case but which is mentioned also in the Babli, 61a). If an amphora is stored at a place reserved for it and the Gentile is seen going there where he has no reason to be, the wine will become forbidden since one must suspect him of removing the seal, taking some wine, and resealing.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: The Mishnah speaks of a town “with double doors and bolts.194A fortified city; the expression is Biblical (Deut. 3:5). In the Babli the author is Samuel, Rav Jehudah’s teacher and the statement is accepted as authoritative. According to Rashi, the reason is that there all inhabitants are known and easily checked out; therefore one does not need a permanent presence of the watchman.” Was it stated in that case “a watchman even if he comes only at intervals”? It was stated196Tosephta 7:10. “A Jew and a Gentile who brought their wine into the surroundings197According to H. L. Fleischer this is derived from Greek περιοχή in its meaning “circumference”. In the Tosephta, the corresponding word is (Persian) פַּרוָר “suburb”. This is translated here. of the city, even if the watchmen are Gentile, even if the amphoras are open, they are permitted since one does not make a libation in this way.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The buyer has the same status as the seller. It was stated thus198In the Babli, 61a/b, “buyer and renter”. The Yerushalmi’s version is preferable since the Mishnah refers to the producer who is the seller. The rules about storage are identical for producer and buyer.: Whether the seller or the buyer [stores] on the Gentile’s property. If the wine is the Jew’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal. If the wine is the Gentile’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal199The key to the storage room and the seal either on the covers of the amphoras or, if the amphoras are open, on the door to the storage room.; but if no Jew lives there it is forbidden even if key and seal are in his hand. Rebbi Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Not on this was it said but on the following, “one who makes an Non-Jew’s wine in purity,”200The disagreement is not about the statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar applied to Mishnah 12, where everybody agrees that the identity of the Gentile is irrelevant, but about Mishnah 13 where the majority insists that it refers only to the owner of the wine press. etc.

MISHNAH: If somebody hires a worker to work for him on libation wine, his wages are forbidden1If a Gentile hires a Jewish worker specifically to work on his wine, the wages are forbidden to the worker for all usufruct. The rule which makes it impossible for the Jewish worker to be hired in this way is purely rabbinical; it is not implied by the fact that libation wine is forbidden for usufruct for a Jewish owner.. If he hired him for other work, even though he told him, transport an amphora of libation wine for me from one place to another, his wages are permitted2The moment that libation wine was not mentioned at the time of the hiring, there is no obligation on the worker to refrain from being occupied with libation wine.. HALAKHAH: “If somebody hires a worker,” etc. Does he not give him his wages? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They fined him a fine3A customary restriction without justification in law.. 4This paragraph is a shortened and somewhat corrupt copy of one in Ševi`it8:6, Notes 94–98. It was stated5Babli 62a, Tosephta Ševi`it6:26.: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are sabbatical.6They should only be used to buy Sabbatical produce to be eaten, not processed.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. And what Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of the House of Rebbi Yannai that they should not accept in their hands7While the paragraph in general looks like a bad copy of the one in Ševi`it, the reading בידיהן “in their hands” is superior to the reading בדיהן “of their olive presses” of both Ševi`it mss. There is no question why one should be paid in wine for using an olive press. wine as wages but money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah8Who in Ševi`it(8:4 Note 69, Tosephta 6:21) forbid to pay for anything, even for food, with sabbatical produce.. Rebbi Ilai said, this baraita deals with idolatrous produce9This reading is quite impossible; idolatrous produce does not exist. In Ševi`it: “forbidden produce”, stored sabbatical produce at a time when wild animals no longer can find produce on the fields, which has to be consumed immediately.. As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in matters of libation wine they fined him a fine. If he transported for him amphora against amphora10The language is not clear and the proposed interpretations are unfounded. It seems that the worker is not paid as a worker for his time but as a contractor by the piece, and is not paid in money but receives an (empty) amphora.In the entire paragraph it is equally possible not to read the sentences as apodictic statements but as questions. If he is paid in land, is the land forbidden? Etc., you fine him in his own amphora up to the amount of his wages11That he might be forced to sell the amphora and destroy coins in the equivalent of his wages.. If he paid him his wages in land. Everywhere you are saying that land is not forbidden12Halakhah 3:6, Note 125., here it is forbidden. If he paid him his wages in an animal. Everywhere you are saying that anything breathing is not forbidden13Halakhah 3:6, Note 140., here it is forbidden. If he gave him anything as his wages14Which clearly is worth more than the amount due for his wages., is everything forbidden or only up to the amount of his wages? If he worked for him for goodwill, do you impound his property in the value of his wages? If he worked for him half a day in prohibition and half a day in permission. If he was selling profane [food] and Second Tithe together, [the buyer] has the choice of treating as profane what he chooses and as Second Tithe what he chooses15This statement is not found in any parallel source but no opposing opinion is noted. While it is necessary to “give a name” to the Second Tithe due for a harvest, it is not necessary bodily to separate it from the remainder of the harvest. If the farmer does not intend to bring his tithe bodily to Jerusalem, he may sell it and transfer its sanctity to the money. The buyer then has to separate tithe from profane food but is not restricted in his choice; cf. Introduction to Tractate Ma`aser Šeni.. Is this the same here? Let us hear from the following16Ševi`it8:4 Note 65. In the first case the worker is hired as a contractor, in the second as a worker who has to be paid for his time.. If somebody hires a worker to bring wine to a sick person; if he delivered [the employer] has to pay him, otherwise he does not have to pay him. But if he told him, wine for a sick person from place X, an apple for a sick person from place X, whether or not he delivered he has to pay him, for he pays the wages of his feet. And here, does he not pay the wages of his feet17There is no reason to impound the wages for the time he worked in a permitted way.? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if he hired him to break amphoras of libation wine; is it forbidden anyhow18In the Babli 63b the question was asked by Amoraim of the second generation and answered in the negative.? Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited19They are not forbidden to the Gentile, only to a Jew who knows that this money was received as payment for wine whose usufruct is forbidden to Jews. From the argument in the text it seems possible that one should read; “Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile and the proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited”, since in the proof texts wine and idols are always treated in parallel. On the other hand, the preceding text (Notes 11–12) notes that the prohibition of wine, a purely rabbinic custom, follows much stricter rules than the biblical prohibition of idols.. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.20Babli 64a. If the Gentile tells the Jew that he gives him money received for forbidden wine or idols, the Jew may not accept since we must assume that the Gentile tells the truth. In the Babli’s tradition, this is accepted by everybody; in the Yerushalmi this is particular to R. Joḥanan.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?21This is read as meaning that in all cases the Jew may accept the money and does not have to worry that people will say that he accepts idol money. The Babli would interpret the baraita as stating that the Jew may accept the money as long as the Gentile does not explicitly declare it as idol’s proceeds.” 22The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 54b. Anything received in barter for an idol must be destroyed as if it were the idol itself. Everybody agrees that substitutes are forbidden. What about substitutes of substitutes? Rebbi Ḥanina said, a disagreement between Rebbi Ismael and the rabbis. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, forbidden. But the rabbis say, permitted. Rebbi Eleazar ben Hoshaia, the reason of the rabbis, you would be banned like itself23Deut. 7:26.. Anything which you can keep from it is like itself24Any proceeds are like the idol itself. But nothing is said about proceeds for barter of the proceeds.. What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, like itself, like itself two times25The expression חֶרֶם כָּמוֹהוּ appears only once in the biblical text. The argument gives the reason for R. Ismael ben R. Yose’s position. If the proceeds obtained by barter for an idol are an idol, then the proceeds in barter for the proceeds are also an idol; in effect, the prohibition never stops., because of nothing should cling to your hand from the ban26Deut. 13:18..

MISHNAH: If somebody27A Gentile. The Mishnah is parallel to Mishnah 1; only rentals made for the explicit purpose of transporting libation wine (or idols) is forbidden, not occasional use if the hiring was for general purposes. hires a donkey to transport libation wine, its wages are forbidden. If he hired it to sit on it, even though he put his barrel28Greek λάγυνος, λάγηνος, Latin lagena“bottle”, also a measure. Middle High German lâgen“small barrel; a measure of volume or weight”. on it, its wages are permitted. HALAKHAH: “If somebody hires a donkey,” etc. How far? Up to when the donkey takes offense29If the weight of the rider and the barrel would be more than the normal load of a donkey, the contract would be for transporting the wine and illegal..

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell on grapes, one should wash it off and they are permitted; but if they were split they are forbidden. If happened that Boetius ben Zenon brought dried figs in a boat when amphoras of libation wine broke over them. The case came before the Sages and they permitted. This is the principle: Anything where the taste improves the use is forbidden30If the taste of the forbidden wine improves the taste of the food on which it fell.; anything where the taste does not improve its use is permitted31If the spill was accidental, it is not necessary that the wine actually diminish the value or enjoyment of the food on which it fell., such as vinegar on broken beans32In the Halakhah both here and in the Babli (67a) R. Joḥanan restricts this to wine falling on a dish of hot broken beans or peas.. HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell on grapes,” etc. Our Mishnah if their seal is not loosened. But if their seal was loosened they are as injured33Grapes which still sit on the vine with intact skin are sealed; if libation wine falls on them one washes the bunch and it is permitted. But loose grapes have a hole where they were sitting on the vine; the libation wine enters through this hole and cannot be removed.. How do you treat them34What is the reason that injured grapes on which libation wine fell are forbidden?? Like wine in wine or wine in a dish35If wine of one kind is mixed with wine of another type, for wine cognoscenti this definitely is spoilage. But wine added to a cooked dish improves the taste.? If you treat it like wine in a dish, according to everybody it is forbidden. If you treat it like wine in wine, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages36As noted later, if the forbidden admixture improves the taste, the mixture is forbidden according to everybody. But if it spoils the taste, the rabbis opposing Rebbi Meїr do permit consumption of the food.. 37This paragraph is an intrusion here; it should be placed at the end of the Halakhah since it refers to the last statement in the Mishnah, forbidden vinegar on broken beans. Ihe parallel is in the Babli, 67a. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this you say if it is hot. But cold it is forbidden, for the people of Sepphoris are used to make it and call it laxative38In the Babli, the dish of Sepphoris is called שחלײם. This probably comes from the Babylonian pronunciation of ח as ה. As the Babli reports, Megillah24b, Rebbi told R. Ḥiyya the Babylonian to be careful if he quotes Is 8:17, “I am waiting (וְחִכִּיתִי) for the Eternal”, not to blaspheme by saying “I am hitting (וְהִכִּיתִי).” Now שְׁחַלַיִים are watercresses, not making sense for the context. The root שהל is not documented in Hebrew or any of the Talmudic Aramaic dialects; but one of the many meanings of Arabic سمل is “to purge, to act as laxative.” This is taken as the meaning here. It cannot be determined whether the word was pronounced with שׁ or שׂ, even though שׁ is more likely.. If it was hot and one cooled it down? Then even hot it should be forbidden since usually it cools down39An implied answer to this question is found in the Babli: Vinegar in the cold dish improves the taste and therefore makes it forbidden. If the dish then is heated the vinegar spoils the taste but this does not remove the prohibition. Cooling the dish after heating leaves the dish spoiled.. 40This paragraph is a corrupted version of one in Terumot10:2 (Notes 20–24), Orlah2:5 (Note 121). It is the continuation of the discussion why and under which condition contamination with libation wine makes food prohibited. Babli 67b/68a. As we have stated41Tosephta Terumot8:9.. “Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted,” as for example vinegar which fell into broken beans. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated there42Mishnah Terumot10:2. The barley grains are heave, forbidden to anybody but a Cohen. Since they spoil the taste of the water, they impart no sanctity to it. The water remains permitted to everybody.: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.” About this Mishnah, Rebbi Meïr says it is in dispute, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: everybody’s opinion43This sentence and the following one are impossible; Rebbi Meïr the fourth-generation Tanna cannot engage in a discussion with the second generation Amoraim RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish. The correct statements are from Orlah and Terumot: “About this Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan says it is in dispute, Rebbi Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr it is in dispute, in the opinions of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who with a Jew was transporting wine jugs from one place to another, if it can be presumed to be watched it is permitted44The Jew transports kosher wine and hires a Gentile as help. Even if the Jew does not see the Gentile at every moment; the fact that the Jew is around will prevent the Gentile from touching the wine if he knows that he would lose his job and face a damage suit.. If he told him that he was leaving45The Jew informed the Gentile that he was leaving for some time., the time needed to open, close, and fill the hole46The containers are of clay and are closed. If the expected time of absence of the owner is sufficient for the Gentile to drill a hole in the cover, close it again and seal it, the wine becomes forbidden.; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to open, and close, and dry47He thinks that the owner upon his return would recognize a hole freshly filled. He therefore forbids the wine only if there was time for the Gentile to remove the old seal completely, make a new one and have it dry to become undetectable.. HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was transporting,” etc. Rebbi Samuel said, it happened that a Non-Jew was transporting wine jugs with a Jew from one place to another. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who forbade. They said, the case was about open [containers]48The ruling of R. Abbahu does not contradict the Mishnah. The wine containers are only “presumed to be watched” if on top they are closed with a clay cover. Open containers, where the wine could be touched in no time, are never “presumed to be watched”.. Rebbi Zeriqan said, not only full ones but also short ones; for he suddenly could have touched with his hand and removed it49Even if the container has a narrow neck and is not full, so that even without a cover it is not possible for the Gentile to touch the wine and remove his hand in less than a second, the wine is forbidden.. You may be of the opinion that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s statement was a leniency, but rather it is a stringency. For the opening of the rabbis leaves little of the cover50While Rabban Simeon requires time for the cover to dry, he envisages the possibility that the Gentile drill a small hole in the cover, whereas the rabbis only contemplate the removal of most of the old cover.. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Immi: A roasted egg of Samaritans is permitted51There is no suspicion that it not be kosher.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Samaritans’ dishes are permitted. This is what you say about a dish usually made without wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he put some in, it is forbidden even for usufruct52Samaritan wine is forbidden as if it were Gentile wine.. As what had been stated: In earlier times they used to say, why is the wine of Ogdor forbidden? Because of Kefar-Pagesh, and of Burgata because of the Saracen tower, and of the Kushit spring because of Kefar Shalem53These places are not identified; also it is not clear whether the wine of the first mentioned locality is forbidden because it is Samaritan close to the second one settled by Gentiles, or that the first locality is Jewish and the second Samaritan. Kefar Shalem may be the place mentioned in Gen. 33.18 as situated near Sichem.. They changed to say, open it54Wine sold in open amphoras since there is no controlling who might have touched it. is everywhere forbidden, sealed it is permitted. Perforated and repaired it is like sealed, Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, it is like open. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I can confirm. If it has a cavity on it55This translation is tentative; it is offered as an educated guess. The proposal of Pene Moshe to read קירי “cera, wax” instead of יקיר is not very convincing; a wax seal can easily be counterfeit. The explanation of M. Sokoloff, to read here as at other places “worth, expense” is even less convincing; it seems illogical to assume that wine was not tampered with because it was expensive. The explanation given is based on Arabic وقر “cavity”. If the clay seal on top of the amphora is not plane it probably is original, if it is smooth it may have been tampered with. it was not opened, otherwise it was opened. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to the city of Samaria56In the Babli, Ḥulin6a, he was sent by R. Meїr to buy wine from Samaritans.. The scribe came to him. He told him, bring me a closed jug57Of wine to drink.. He answered him, there is a spring in front of you, drink. He importuned him; he said, there is a spring in front of you, drink. When he saw that he was going to importune him, he told him, if you are master of yourself, there is a spring in front of you, drink. But if your soul brings you to rebellion, you are going to swallow a knife if you are too covetous58Prov. 23:2.. The Samaritans already are degenerate59This projects the Amoraic development of separation of Jews from Samaritans into Tannaitic times (and it was not complete even in Fatimid Egypt.). Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose went to the wellknown Neapolis60The former Sichem, today Nablus.. The Samaritans came to him. He told them, I am seeing you bowing down not to this mountain but to the idols under it, as it is written, he hid them under the terebinth near Sichem61Gen. 35:4.. He heard their voices saying, let us get up early and gather those thorns. He understood that they intended to kill him; he got up early and left. Rebbi Aḥa went to Emmaus and ate something made in boiling water62Dumplings or bagels, any grain product prepared in hot water is called חָלוּט.. Rebbi Jeremiah ate pickles. Rebbi Ḥizqiah ate locusts63All three considered Samaritan cooking as kosher. (Also Samaritan slaughter, Babli Ḥulin5b).. Rebbi Abbahu forbade their wine on the testimony of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Immi who went up King’s Mountain and saw a Gentile who was suspected because of wine64He was suspected of selling Gentile wine to Samaritans. The latter, as Sadducees, had no reason to forbid Gentile wine which was not actually used in pagan exercises.. They came and said it before him. He told them, but not as a pretext65He wanted to forbid Samaritan wine only upon solid evidence.. But some say, one Sabbath eve no wine was found in all of Samaria66The district.. When Sabbath ended, it was found full from what the Arameans brought and the Samaritans accepted from them67As noted earlier, they had no reason to forbid Gentile wine. But this made Samaritan wine equal to Gentile wine for rabbinic Jews. Of all reasons given, this seems the most plausible.. But some say, when King Diocletian came here he decided and said, all peoples have to offer libations except the Jews. The Samaritans offered libations and their wine was forbidden. But some say, they have a kind of dove and they offer libations to it. The Samaritans of Caesarea asked Rebbi Abbahu: Your fathers were providing themselves from us68They were buying Samaritan wine for personal use.. Why are you not providing yourselves from us? He answered them, your fathers did not spoil their deeds69One could assume that in earlier times Samaritan wine was made according to rabbinic standards. Tosaphot Ḥagigah25a s. v.שרצועה., you are spoiling your deeds. There70Mishnah Miqwaot8:1. we have stated: “The Land of Israel is pure and its ritual baths are pure71There is a universal presumption that every Jewish congregation in the Land of Israel will see to it that its ritual baths are built according to the rules (in particular, that the water is natural, ground water or rain water, not from vessels, and that the amount of water is at last 40 seah(a Roman culleus, 20 amphorae) as required by rabbinic tradition. A visitor may use any such miqweh without first investigating its status. Cf. Berakhot3:4, Notes 164–166..” 72Tosephta Miqwaot6:1.“The land of the Samaritans is pure; its ritual baths, and its dwellings73Gentile dwellings and paths are impure even in the Land of Israel since one has to worry that Gentiles bury their stillborn in their dirt floors or on their paths. Anybody walking over such a spot would become impure by “tent impurity.” The opinion that Gentiles are not sources of “tent impurity” is not found in Yerushalmi sources (Babli Yebamot61a, attributed to R. Simeon ben Ioḥai.), and its paths are pure.” Its paths are pure; it is a presumption that they would not select a path unless it was pure74They are assumed to be more strict in matters of impurity than rabbinic Jews.. And its ritual baths are pure; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose75The Tanna.: that is, to believe them that they are not from drawn water76Which is a source of impurity., but not for the measure of forty; for they explain, only a spring or a cistern, a collection of water77Lev. 11:36.,” just as a spring cleanses in any amount, any collection of water cleanses in any amount78In Sifra Šemini Parašah9(1) the argument attributed here to Samaritans (as Sadducees) is rejected only because of the rule that אַךְ “only” must indicate an exclusion. This characterizes the rule that flowing water purifies in any quantity but standing water only in 40 seah as rabbinical but in essence it is also found in the Damascus Document CD X 11... They asked Rebbi Abbahu: What is the status of their parboiled food79Which only could be forbidden if Samaritans were considered Gentiles.? He told them, if only we also could prohibit their water! Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It is permitted to lend to the Samaritans of Caesarea on interest80He considers them as Gentiles.. Rebbi Yose asked, if that is so, we should not be worried about their ḥallah; but we see that the rabbis do worry81A Gentile baker does not have to give ḥallah and should he give it would not have any holiness. If the rabbis insist that Samaritan bread may be used only if ḥallah had duly been given, the attitude of R. Jacob bar Aḥa and R. Abbahu is rejected. Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa was one of the teachers of R. Yose, one has to assume that the latter’s position is that of his foremost teacher, R. Jeremiah..

MISHNAH: If somebody leaves his wine on a cart82Latin carrum. The teamster transporting the wine (in sealed amphoras) is Gentile. or a ship83A ship on a river. and went by a short-cut84Latin compendiarium(iter); cf. Berakhot1:1, Note 36., [even if] he entered a town and took a bath85The Jew is out of sight and away for an extended period. Nevertheless the wine is permitted if the Gentile has to expect every minute that the owner of the wine might return., it is permitted. If he told him that he was leaving45The Jew informed the Gentile that he was leaving for some time., the time needed to open, close, and fill the hole46The containers are of clay and are closed. If the expected time of absence of the owner is sufficient for the Gentile to drill a hole in the cover, close it again and seal it, the wine becomes forbidden.; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to open, and close, and dry47He thinks that the owner upon his return would recognize a hole freshly filled. He therefore forbids the wine only if there was time for the Gentile to remove the old seal completely, make a new one and have it dry to become undetectable.. HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves his wine on a cart,” etc. 86Quoted in Or Zarua240 (edition of Makhon Yerushalaim 2010, vol. 3 p. 650b); referred to in the Babli, Šabbat122a. Rebbi Ḥanina said, it happened that a cart of the family of Rebbi was leaving for more than four mil87The distance between the Jewish overseer and the Gentile driver. The mil referred to here probably is a quarter of a Greek parasanges, 1380 m.. The case came before the rabbis who declared it kosher. It was on the road to Sidon populated by Jews88In this interpretation, such a large distance is acceptable only if the cart at all times was seen by Jews.. Rebbi Ḥanina89In Or Zarua, R. Ḥama, a more likely reading. The attribution to R. Ḥanina of the original statement is confirmed by the Babli. said, sometimes he sees a fence formed by thorn bushes90Which may look like human shapes at a distance. and he thinks that they are people and is afraid.

MISHNAH: If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store, even though he [intermittently] leaves and returns, [the wine] is permitted. If he told him that he was leaving45The Jew informed the Gentile that he was leaving for some time., the time needed to open, close, and fill the hole46The containers are of clay and are closed. If the expected time of absence of the owner is sufficient for the Gentile to drill a hole in the cover, close it again and seal it, the wine becomes forbidden.; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to open, and close, and dry47He thinks that the owner upon his return would recognize a hole freshly filled. He therefore forbids the wine only if there was time for the Gentile to remove the old seal completely, make a new one and have it dry to become undetectable.. HALAKHAH: “If somebody leaves a Gentile in charge of his store,,” etc. Following Rebbi Meïr? Did not Rebbi Meïr say, “in any case the house is impure?91Mishnah Tahorot7:4. Since an anonymous Mishnah is supposed to follow R. Meïr’s formulation, an apparent contradiction between two statements attributed to R. Meïr must be resolved.Since the wine in the store is for sale, it is stored in open amphoras. The wine would become forbidden for usufruct if touched by the Gentile. In our Mishnah it seems that R. Meïr assumes that the Gentile will not touch the open amphoras. But in Mishnah Tahorot7:4 he holds that if a woman keeping all rules of ritual purity invites one careless in these matters to help her in her home all vessels in the home become impure since one must assume that the helper is impure and touches everything in sight.” Rebbi Ḥama in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If a courtyard is subdivided by a low wall92The explanation is Rashi’s (70b, Bava batra 2b). The etymology is unknown; the word certainly is different from פְּסֵיפָס ψῆφος “pebble”., for purities it is impure, in matters of libation wine it is pure93A courtyard (in the back of houses or walled in, not directly open to the street) has been divided by a low wall as a sign that each party has only the use of its own part. Even though it is easy to step over the partition, the fact that it is raised is enough to create the presumption that the parties will abide by the rules and not trespass. If the dwellers in one part are scrupulous in observing the rules of purity while the others are not (or are Gentiles), the vessels standing in the courtyard of the observant party remain pure. Similarly, if one party is Jewish and the other Gentile, wine amphoras stored in the the Jewish part remain permitted since the presumption is that the Gentile will not enter the Jewish part., since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine; also the rabbis are restrictive for purities but lenient for libation wine94While a store catering to customers observant in matters of purity certainly cannot have a Gentile employee, a grocery store for the general public can have such an employee. In the Babli, 70b, this is reported as the opinion of Rav, opposed by R. Joḥanan..

MISHNAH: If he was eating with him95A Gentile. at one table, he put a pitcher96Latin lagena, Greek λάγηνος, λάγυνος; Note 28. The vessels contain wine. on the table and one on a Delphic table97Latin delphica(sc. mensa); Chapter 3:2 Note 58. A small ornamental table in the form of the Pythia’s tripod., then let him stay there and left. Anything on the table is forbidden, on the Delphic table is permitted98If the Delphic table is out of the Gentile’s reach when the latter is sitting down.. But when he told him, mix with water and drink, also the one on the Delphic table is forbidden99Since the Gentile guest was given permission to move around.. Open amphoras are forbidden100Since wine is taken out from the open top with a bucket. As the French wine making authorities of the Middle ages pointed out, these rules do not necessarily apply to barrels from which the wine is drawn from a spigot near the bottom., sealed after the time needed to open, and close, and dry47He thinks that the owner upon his return would recognize a hole freshly filled. He therefore forbids the wine only if there was time for the Gentile to remove the old seal completely, make a new one and have it dry to become undetectable.. HALAKHAH: “f he was eating with him,” etc. They wanted to say, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” out of the reach of his outstretched arms101In this first version, anything on a separate table is considered out of the reach of the Gentile’s hand even if physically it is within his reach.. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet102Halakhah 4:11, Note 171. Since an impure person is presumed to make anything within his reach impure, a Gentile must be presumed to make all wine within his reach forbidden., just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be the following. He who said, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” only if103Both prohibition and permission are conditional. out of the reach of his outstretched arms.

MISHNAH: If an investigative unit104Police or military who enter all houses. came to a village in times of peace, open amphoras are forbidden105One may assume that they take from the wine whether or not it is legal. and sealed ones permitted. In times of war these and those are permitted since there is no time to make libations106The soldiers cannot risk getting drunk.. HALAKHAH: “If an investigative unit came to a village,” etc. In times of a religious persecution all is forbidden107This does not refer to the Mishnah but to a text similar to Tosephta 5:6: Pedestals erected by Gentiles in times of religious persecution (as base for statues of the Emperor or of Rome, Halakhah 3:10 Note 231) are never annulled.; it is impossible that there was not a single Jew who worshipped it under duress. This implies that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew is never invalidated108This is a statement in Halakhah 4:4, Note 30, for which proof was not given there.. Rebbi Yose said, you infer from this that an idol which was worshipped by a Jew under duress is never invalidated109The statement is much stronger than the one stated in Halakhah 4:4 since there one speaks of idols genuinely worshipped by a Jew. But here it follows that the act of worship by a Jew makes it permanently forbidden even if the only intent of the Jew was to escape martyrdom. Cf. Babli 54a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “forbidden” here, only “permitted”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is “forbidden” here110R. Joḥanan deletes the first part of the Mishnah; R. Ze`irah confirms the text of the Mishnah.. For if he reaches it he will inform him; if he does reach it he will not inform him, lest he owe him a favor111If the investigator opens the wine amphora, he will inform the owner. Then the wine will be forbidden under the general rules of wine touched by a pagan; the Mishnah is not necessary in this case. If he does not open the amphora the owner may assume that the investigator did not inform him out of malice; even if there was time for new clay to dry (following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel) one may assume that the amphora was not touched. It is this later statement which R. Ze`ira objects to.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the investigative unit comes in peaceful or warring manner112It is not a question whether the investigators are sent by the villagers’ own government or a hostile power but whether they come with friendly or adversary intent, expecting collaboration or hostile reception.. A snake when pursuing him fell in a pit. The case came before the rabbis who declared it usable. They said, there was no time to deposit poison113This is an unrelated story; its connection with the Mishnah is the expression “there was no time” to cause damage. The problem here is the general prohibition to drink water or wine that was left standing unsupervised. This is a sanitary, not a religious, rule since we are afraid that a poisonous snake could have drunk from the fluid and in the process left its own poison in the fluid; Halakhah 2:3. Here it is noted that if the snake fell into a cistern full of wine while attacking (a human?, an animal?) it is not intent on drinking but will try to get out, so as not to drown, as fast as possible. Therefore there is no health hazard in drinking the wine..

MISHNAH: Jewish craftsmen whom a Gentile sent an amphora of libation wine114Which is forbidden for usufruct to the Jew and therefore worthless to them. as their wages are permitted to tell him, give us its worth115They can refuse to accept the amphora and ask for payment in money. But they cannot accept the merchandise and then request that it be exchanged for money; this would be usufruct of forbidden wine, not payment for work done.. After it came to their possession it is forbidden. HALAKHAH: “Jewish craftsmen,” etc. Is it not forbidden because of libation wine? Bar Qappara stated, if he sends it to houses116If the amphora were delivered by a Jewish teamster, he would act as the Jew’s agent and the wine would be forbidden. Similarly, if the wine were delivered by a Gentile to the property of the artisan, the delivery would effect the transfer of property rights and the wine would be forbidden. Therefore one must assume that the Jew rents his place of work in a building dedicated to artisans’ workshops; delivery there by a Gentile transporter does not transfer property rights and the artisan may refuse acceptance and require payment in coin..

MISHNAH: If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted117The entire amphora is sold wholesale for a fixed price. By accepting the deal the Gentile becomes the owner and owes the money to the Jew. If then he takes the measuring rod and dips it into the wine, the wine already is his property and what he does with it is irrelevant for Jewish law.; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden118If the Gentile buys the wine by volume, the contents of the amphora have to be measured before the deal is concluded. It is essential that the measuring be done by a Jew since if the Gentile dips the rod into the amphora he is moving the wine and this turns it into libation wine forbidden for usufruct.. If he took the funnel and measured into a Non-Jew’s vessel, then took it and measured into the vessel of a Jew, if it is contaminated with wine it is forbidden119If the wine is sold in retail quantities and a funnel is used to pour from the amphora into a smaller vessel, it is essential that the funnel be thoroughly cleansed after wine was sold to a Gentile. Since the wine becomes forbidden the moment it reaches the Gentile’s vessel, any drops clinging to the bottom of the funnel which was immersed in the Gentile’s wine also are forbidden. Since libation wine is forbidden in the most minute amounts, a single drop remaining on the funnel turns everything passing through the funnel into libation wine.. If somebody pours from a vessel to another, what is poured from is permitted120While we hold that fluids conduct impurity, so that continuous pouring from a pure into an impure vessel will transfer the impurity to the fluid remaining in the upper vessel, we do not hold so for the prohibition of libation wine. Therefore if wine is poured from an amphora into a smaller vessel, the status of the smaller vessel has no influence on the status of the wine remaining in the amphora., what is poured into is forbidden121The Yerushalmi does not discuss whether wine poured from an amphora into a Gentile’s vessel becomes forbidden when it reaches the vessel or when it leaves the amphora. The difference is relevant to the previous case that a funnel was used in the process. In the first case, the funnel has to be cleansed only in that part which was immersed in the lower vessel; in the second case it has to be cleansed and dried thoroughly from top to bottom.. HALAKHAH: “If somebody sold his wine to a Non-Jew,” etc. 122The text is copied from Qiddušin 1:4, Notes 420–429. The first paragraph belongs to the theory of transfer of property; it is irrelevant here. The origin of the second clearly is in Qiddušin since the Mishnah here is quoted as “there”, even though the text here is slightly better. Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One who handles a wine-skin and it splits in his hand is not responsible for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is necessary even if he takes it in the store when he has no other intention than that no other person should take it. Can he take possession at a minimal rate123If there is firm intention to buy one could argue that the buyer already agreed to pay no less than the lowest price recorded for a similar product within the last few days. Then it would be irrelevant whether the wine was measured before or after the price was fixed. Since prices are influenced by news, the question could have been dismissed out of hand. Babli 72a.? Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, a Mishnah says that it cannot become his possession at a minimal rate, as we have stated there: “If somebody sells his wine to a Non-Jew, in case he fixed the price before that one measured, the proceeds are permitted; if that one measured before he fixed the price, the proceeds are forbidden.” If you say that it can come into his possession at a minimal price, even if he measured before he fixed the price should be as if he fixed the price before he measured and the proceeds would be permitted. What means “contaminated with wine”124The expression is uncommon and in the Mishnah in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. is replaced by עֲכֶּבֶת “a remainder”.? If it is dirty, as one says, immersed in blood125Hos. 6:8.. The following is obvious: If the Jew holds the funnel and the Gentile pours, everybody agrees that is it forbidden126If the Gentile tilts the Amphora, he moves the wine in it and the entire contents of the amphora become libation wine forbidden for all usufruct. Babli 60a.. If the Gentile holds the funnel and the Jew pours, Rebbi Assi127This is his Babli name; in the Yerushalmi he otherwise appears as R. Yasa. Possibly one also should read the Babylonian Ammi for Galilean Immi. forbids and Rebbi Immi permits. If the Gentile holds the opening of the wineskin and the Jew pours128The Gentile keeps the opening of the wineskin in a fixed position; the Jew lifts the skin to pour., Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: this is the disagreement. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose, which disagreement? He told him, the disasgreement between Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Immi. If the Jew holds the wineskin and the Gentile pours, they wanted to say that according to everybody it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel: In itself it implies that it is forbidden. For sometimes the Jew will loosen his grip and then the entire pouring is done by the Gentile129And even the wine remaining in the skin is forbidden.. If somebody lets down130It is not too clear what the hapax רגל (as Palestinian Aramaic verb) means. It is conjectured that it means “to turn upside down”. It is taken here in one of the meanings of Arabic رجل “to lower”. If a sealed kosher wineskin is handled by a Gentile it remains permitted. a wineskin from top to bottom this is not pouring from vessel to vessel.

MISHNAH: Libation wine is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount. Wine mixed with wine131Libation wine mixed with kosher wine. or water mixed with water132Holy water used for pagan rituals. in the most minute amount. Wine in water or water in wine, if it gives taste133In the practice of the Babli, if the forbidden substance is less than one sixtieth of the permitted; cf. Terumot Chapter 10.. This is the principle, kind in the same kind in the most minute amount, kind in another kind if it gives taste. HALAKHAH: “Libation wine is forbidden,” etc. Ḥizqiah said, that is at a place where water is not sold by measure. But at a place where water is sold by measure it is like wine in wine134If water is so precious that it is sold bottled, mixing wine and water is mixing two equally important fluids and treated as equals. This rule is not found in the Babli.. 135From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is from Orlah 2:7 (ע), Notes 158–174. The text there is superior in the tradition both of text and of names.Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last]136Added from ע, needed for comprehension. it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one137Mishnah `Orlah 2:10.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi127This is his Babli name; in the Yerushalmi he otherwise appears as R. Yasa. Possibly one also should read the Babylonian Ammi for Galilean Immi. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted138Babli 73b.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water)139In ע “wine” (permitted wine). Only this makes sense; otherwise there would be no need to mention two different vessels. and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted140Babli 73a.. So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Let us hear from the following141The text in parentheses (identical with that in `Orlah) was originally written by the scribe; the text in brackets is his correction.: “When is leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural ones after three baking loads.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important personality or he married off his son, if he baked three loads in one week one after the other it is permitted. Even when they said of (rural) [city]142It is a practice universally accepted (probably by necessity when Sadducees were a viable Jewish sect), not a decision incorporated in a consistent theory of the law. bakers after three days, if he was under pressure and baked three loads one after the other, it is permitted. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted? And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah were instructing in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! But here we do not instruct so but Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following:: Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Immi, and Rebbi Yasa, and they instructed him following Rebbi Eliezer. How? Would they instruct following an isolated opinion? No, since they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer142It is a practice universally accepted (probably by necessity when Sadducees were a viable Jewish sect), not a decision incorporated in a consistent theory of the law.. Rebbi Mani said before Rebbi Yose: as you are saying there143In matters of leavened matter; does this apply to all cases of food prohibited in the most minute amount? The answer is negative., “practice follows Rebbi Eliezer”, also here practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. He said to him, for everything144The scribe also wrote דבה in `Orlah but there corrected to דבר. The form דִּבָּה, Accadic dibbu, should be acknowledged, but it is not clear whether this is learned Hebrew speech or popular Aramaic.?

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount:145The rule that anything which cannot be tasted in a mixture is irrelevant does not apply to these items. An admixture of one of these even if less than one in a thousand will make everything forbidden. Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins146Mishnah 2:3., and an ox which was stoned147Which killed a human, Ex. 21:28., and the calf whose neck was broken148To atone for an unsolved murder case, Deut. 21:1–9., and the birds of the sufferer from skin disease149For purification of the healed person, Lev. 14:4-6., and the nazir’s hair150Which has to be burned, Num. 6:18., and the firstborn donkey151Which is not redeemed by a lamb given to a Cohen, Ex. 13:13., and meat in milk152Meat cooked in milk, Ex. 23:19,34:26, Deut. 14:21., and profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct153It is pointed out in the Halakhah that the biblical text forbids only the slaughter of dedicated animals outside the holy precinct, Lev. 17:4.. These are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount. HALAKHAH: “The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount,” etc. Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins, because nothing of the taboo should cling to your hand154Deut. 13:18. Sifry Deut. 96.. An ox which was stoned. From the meaning of what was said, the ox shall be stoned147Which killed a human, Ex. 21:28. would I not know that it cannot be eaten? Why does the verse say, it shall not be eaten? From here that it is forbidden for usufruct155This is a very short reference to a text in `Orlah 3:1 (Notes 26–28, Pesaḥim 2:1 28c), which is part of a lengthy discussion under which conditions a prohibition as food implies a prohibition of usufruct (`Orlah 3:1, Notes 10–44; Pesaḥim 2:1; Babli Pesaḥim 21b, Qiddušin 56b, Bava qamma 41a, Ḥulin 114b) Since the mention of the prohibition as food is unnecessary, the ox qualifies as a case where the prohibition as food means prohibition of usufruct. In the Babylonian sources (Bava qamma 41a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim 10) it is agreed that it is obvious that a stoned animal was not ritually slaughtered and therefore is forbidden as meat but it is noted that the prohibition as food is necessary anyhow to show that if the ox was ritually slaughtered after conviction by the court, the slaughter is ineffective and does not permit the carcass to be eaten. Everybody agrees that if the ox was correctly slaughtered before a trial could be held the meat is kosher. The Babli has to find the prohibition of usufruct in another part of the verse which makes the prohibition one of rabbinic interpretation rather than biblical.Louis Ginzberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah (New York 1909) p. 280 has published a leaf of selections from the entire tractate. The passage referring to the paragraph under discussion reads there (vocalization added):וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל. סָקֹ֨ל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וג׳ מִמַּשְׁמַע שנ׳ סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לֹא יֵאָכֵל. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵֽאָכֵל֙. אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְאַסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. ר׳ אַבָּ׳ בְשֶׁם ר׳ יוֹחָנָן כָּל־מָקוֹם שנ׳ לֹא יֵאָכֵל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ … אִסוּרAnd an ox which was stoned. The ox should certainly be stoned. From the meaning of what was said, shall certainly be stoned would we not know that it cannot be eaten? Why does the verse say, it shall not be eaten? But that it is forbidden for eating and forbidden for usufruct. Rebbi Abba[hu] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Any place where it says shall not be eaten, you shall not eat [it is forbidden for eating and forbidden for usufruct.]The addition to the text is from `Orlah 3:1 (Note 10) or Pesaḥim 2:1 l. 15. In these and all Babli sources (quoted above) the statement is attributed to R. Eleazar, not R. Joḥanan (R. Eleazar’s teacher). The addition has to be considered a commentary. . And the calf whose neck was broken. There, there. Since there mentioned further describes a prohibition of usufruct, also there said here implies prohibition of usufruct156Babli 29b, Sifry Deut. 207. This is a case of equal cut. It is written in Deut. 21:4,and they shall break the calf’s neck there in the wadi. Also it is written in Num.20:1, there Miriam died and was buried there. Since a grave and all its appurtenances are forbidden for usufruct, and since the mention of there in Deut. 21:4 is not logically necessary, the prohibition of usufruct (and, as noted in the Babylonian sources, the obligation of burial) is transferred to the calf.. And the birds of the sufferer from skin disease. Any pure bird you may eat157Deut. 14:11., this is the living bird. But the following you may not eat of them158Deut. 14:12., that is the slaughtered one159Sifry Deut. 103, Babli Qiddušin 57a, Ḥulin 82a. Since first it is said, any pure bird you may eat, which is immediately followed by but the following you may not eat of them, this implies that not only may one not eat the impure birds listed later but also some pure birds. Of the two pure birds used for the purification ceremony of the healed sufferer from skin disease, one is slaughtered (Lev. 14:5). The other is released (v. 7); since it is nor recognizable it cannot be forbidden to anybody who might catch it. Therefore the slaughtered bird must be the one pure bird which was correctly slaughtered and nevertheless is forbidden as food. The parallel sources also presuppose that the remains of the slaughtered bird, after its blood has benn used, is forbidden for usufruct but no explicit reason for that is given. One must assume that this is one of the cases where a prohibition as food implies prohibition of usufruct (cf. Note 155).. Or the other way around? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: The Torah has no prohibition of usufruct which applies to any living thing160Babli Qiddušin 57a, opposed there by R. Simeon ben Laqish.. And the nazir’s hair. He shall put it in the fire which is under the well-being offering150,Which has to be burned, Num. 6:18.161Using the hair as fuel is a kind of usufruct; since it is a positive commandment to burn the hair in this way, any other use is forbidden (but not sanctionable).. And the firstborn donkey. Breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since there one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct, also here one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct162Babli Bekhorot 9b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 18, dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai 13:13 (l. 25). This is heqqeš rather than “equal cut”. Since the only other case where the neck of a four-legged animal has to be broken is the atonement for an unsolved murder case, the rules of the latter have to be applied to the case where a rancher refuses to redeem the first born of his donkey. Since the rule has moral justification in the parallel sources, “he refused to give value to the Cohen; therefore value has to be denied him”, the rule has to be considered rabbinic rather than biblical.. And meat in milk. It was stated: At three places it is written do not cook a kid goat152Meat cooked in milk, Ex. 23:19,34:26, Deut. 14:21., about eating, about usufruct, and about cooking163Babli Ḥulin 115b, Qiddušin 57b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 20 (opposed by Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 23:19, Sifry Re`eh 104).. And profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: The Torah said, slaughter what is Mine in My place153It is pointed out in the Halakhah that the biblical text forbids only the slaughter of dedicated animals outside the holy precinct, Lev. 17:4. and what is yours in yours. Since Mine in yours is forbidden, also yours in Mine164Babli Qiddušin 57b where the argument if found unconvincing and other proofs are given.. Is it punished by extirpation? Does not Rebbi Ismael say, one infers by an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish by an argument de minore ad majus165Cf. Yebamot 11:1 Note 50. There is no argument de minore ad majus involved here; more appropriate is the language of the Babli (Sanhedrin 54a, Makkot 5b,14a,17a): One does not punish by a logical argument (only by an explicit verse). One cannot object that extirpation anyhow is a matter for the Heavenly Court not bound by human arguments since offenses punishable by extirpation automatically are punishable by flogging by the human court. The exclusion of extirpation implies removal of the offense from human criminal justice.? Why did we not state carcasses with them166Carcass meat as meat forbids only if it can be tasted, i. e., if it is more than 1/60 in a mixture. Therefore the question must be about entire carcasses which usually are sold by the piece; nothing usually sold by the piece can become insignificant (`Orlah 3:6, Terumot 10:6; Babli Beṣah 3b).? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it did state only things forbidden for usufruct. Carcass meat is permitted for usufruct167Deut. 14:21.. They objected, is there not leavened matter on Passover168Here again one only considers loaves of bread which exclusively are sold by the piece and therefore cannot become insignificant.? Leavened matter makes liable to extirpation169Ex. 12:15 (but only for eating, not for possession., but for these170The prohibited items enumerated in the Mishnah. there is no extirpation. Rebbi Yose asked in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: May prohibitions of usufruct become insignificant in (combination) [by being shredded]171The text in parentheses is the original text written by the scribe, printed in the editio princeps and the editions based on the latter. The text in brackets is a correction by the scribe himself.In both cases the question is whether prohibitions of usufruct automatically imply the impossibility of disregarding minute amounts or whether the prohibition will be void if either the prohibited item is mixed with sufficiently many permitted items and is no longer recognizable or whether it reverts to the usual test of giving taste if shredded and mixed with others.? But did we not state “the ox which was stoned”? Explain it in pieces172The question is legitimate for meat from such an ox. This question then reads טירוף.. But did we not state “the birds of the sufferer from skin disease”? Explain it as a bird among birds173A slaughtered small bird among many of the same kind. Here one has to read צירוף.. But did we not state “the nazir’s hair”? Can you say a bird among birds174This is the one genuine question since hair is not sold by the unit; therefore the rabbinic prohibition of unufruct for admixtures of forbidden things sold by the piece (Note 166) does not apply. Here also the prohibition of usufruct is secondary; the question can arise only if the positive commandment of burning the hair in the fire cooking the well-being offering has not been followed.? When they came to study `Orlah did Rebbi Jacob object before Rebbi Yose, did we not state175Mishnah `Orlah 3:3. Since a minimum length of a si̇̄t (`Orlah 3:3 Note 82) is required, it is obvious that the prohibition of the nazir’s hair does not apply to minute amounts., “if somebody weaves the length of a sīt of firstling’s wool, the cloth must be burned. Of nazir’s hair or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned.” He told him, (if the Tanna had said before us, you would have given)176The text as written here can be translated word for word but does not make any sense. It is a corruption of a text in `Orlah 3:3 (Note 94): אִילּוּ אִיְתָּבָת תַּמָּן אִית הֲווָת יְאוּת׃ If you had objected there you would have been correct, i. e., if when I asked the question in Avodah zarah about prohibitions of usufruct becoming insignificant you pointed out the Mishnah in `Orlah it would have been relevant. correctly.

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell into a cistern, the entire cistern is forbidden for usufruct. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine contained in it177If the wine is sold by volume, the Gentile shall not be required to pay for the volume of libation wine contained in the cistern. Libation wine cannot become insignificant; there is no volume of the cistern which would make the wine kosher to drink. According to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel the prohibition of usufruct does not extend to the mixture.. HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine178The lenient ruling of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is a traditional Babylonian one.. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel179In the Babli, 74a, this is a ruling of the prestigious Rav Naḥman. Here it is quoted in the name of obscure authorities because it is not unquestionable.. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden180As explained in Note 177, even for Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel libation wine remains forbidden even in the most minute amount; it is only that the mixture does not entirely become forbidden for all usufruct.. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine181This is Rav’s interpretation of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s ruling in the Babli 74a. If an amphora in a storage facility with at least two other amphoras was contaminated with libation wine and it can no longer be identified, all amphoras can be sold to Gentiles since for each single one the probability that it was the forbidden one is less than 50% which makes the sale acceptable by biblical standards.. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so182That even a person rejecting the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel could agrees with the ruling.? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it183He does not question that practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in all cases, also of a single cistern or a single amphora, following Samuel in the Babli 74a. He only makes it clear that this is a practical ruling without theoretical underpinning..

MISHNAH: A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched one has to wipe dry184If the wine press is hewn into the local limestone, the walls of the vat under the press into which the pressed juice flows have to be made impermeable. If this is done by sealing with pitch, something has to be done that the pitch does not spoil the wine. The usual way of neutralizing the pitch was to wash it down with wine. The Yerushalmi does not specify how the wiping dry has to be done, probably because it was generally known, but the Halakhah implies that first everything has to be washed down with water for an extended period. The Babli specifies that in washing down an abrasive powder has to be used. and it is pure. But one of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch185Since wood is more absorbent than stone, a new insulation has to be applied.. And one of pottery, even if he removed the pitch, remains forbidden186Pottery absorbs the wine; the walls of the vat become forbidden and cannot be repaired (except by standing empty for 12 months, by which time all organic material will have decomposed.). HALAKHAH: “A wine press of stone which a Gentile had pitched,” etc. Our Mishnah is Rebbi’s. “One of wood, Rebbi said he shall wipe it dry but the Sages say he must remove the pitch.” For pottery it is not following Rebbi, as it was stated187Babli 74b. A comparison with the text of the Babli shows that the text here is elliptic. It must read: The Mishnah follows Rebbi for stone and wood vessels, but does not follow Rebbi for pottery.: A Gentile’s wine-press, bucket, and funnel, Rebbi permits but the Sa (say)188It is obvious that for אוֹמְרִים “say” one has to read אוֹסְרִים “forbid”. What Rebbi permits and the Sages forbid is cleansing the earthenware vessels by wiping them dry.. Rebbi agrees that pitchers are forbidden. Why are these forbidden and those permitted? These one fills with it, the others one does not fill with it189The text of the Babli is more explicit: In pitchers wine is stored, in other vessels it is filled only temporarily.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: practice follows Rebbi190The Babli does not discuss which opinion to follow but, since at other places it states the rule that practice follows Rebbi only if his opinion is opposed by a single dissenter, not against a majority opinion, the codifiers of Talmudic law follow the Sages in this matter.. If a Gentile pitched a papyrus vessel191Not paper cups but wicker work made with papyrus rope or stems; cf. Kilaim 6:3 Note 38. The discussion is interrupted by the next sentence; it continues with “is the disagreement …”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel, practice follows Rebbi192There is Babylonian authority for following Rebbi; cf. Note 190.. It is the disagreement of Rebbi and the Sages, as we have stated193Tosephta 8:3, Babli 75a.: “If somebody’s wine-press was impure194Nothing connected to the ground can be impure except a leprous house. One speaks here of the movable parts and the implements belonging to a wine-press which in a standard sale contract would be sold with the building. and he wants to purify it, the brooms, the planks, and the lentil195Any ovaloid implement is called “lentil”; this may be a vessel (a hot water bottle, Tosephta Šabbat 3:7) or a roller. one rubs dry and they are pure. The wicker-work of wood splinters, or of hemp, or of wood, or of bark, of threads, of bast, one lets age a full twelve months; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, from one olive pressing to the next, from one wine pressing to the next196If one has to wait a full 12 months one loses the use of the press for one full harvest.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said197In the Babylonian sources, Babli and Tosephta: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the name of R. Yose., if he wants to purify it immediately, he puts it for a period in a pipe where water streams, or in a brook whose water flows. Just as one wipes dry for purity198Even though one uses the expression “to make the wine in purity” as equivalent to “making kosher wine” (Halakhah 4:12), here one speaks of purity in the exact biblical meaning. so one wipes dry for libation wine.” How much is a period? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, half a day or half a night. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, either a day or a night. Do they disagree? But one when day and night are equal, the other when day and night are unequal199Babli 75a, Pesaḥim 113b, Yebamot 62b, Ševuot 18b, Niddah 63b. Either day or night at the equinox or half a day during the summer solstice, half a night during the winter solstice..

MISHNAH: If somebody buys crockery200Any vessels and utensils used for the preparation or serving of food. from a Gentile, what usually is immersed one immerses201The basic source is Num. 31:21–23. If the item has not been used for non-kosher food and is of metal, it is immersed in water., cleansed in boiling water one cleanses in boiling water, making glowing white in fire one makes glowing white202The rules for cleansing vessels from non-kosher food are identical with those for cleansing kosher vessels from leavened matter for Passover and discussed in Tractate Pesaḥim. As a general principle, what was used only cold simply has to be cleansed, what was used with hot fluids must be cleansed with boiling water, and what was used in the fire must be exposed to fire.. The spit and the grill203Greek ἐσχάρα, with change of the liquid. one makes glowing white in fire but a knife one rubs clean204As explained in the Halakhah, one pushes it three times into hard soil. This should eliminate all fat particles clinging to the knife. and it is pure. HALAKHAH: “If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile,” etc. “205Babli 75b, Tosephta 8:2. In these texts, the formulation is much more clear. If a vessel is new, one simply immerses it. If it was used cold like cups, one washes them clean. If it was used hot or for cooking, it has to be cleansed by boiling water. If somebody buys crockery from a Gentile, something of which he knows that it is used for human food, he washes them clean and they are pure. But pots and boiling kettles206Latin cucuma. one cleanses in boiling water. All of these, if he used them even if he did not immerse them, or cleansed them in boiling water, or rubbed them clean, or made them glowing white in fire, they are pure.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, one has to immerse them207One has to immerse any vessel bought from a Gentile to convert it to a Jewish vessel. In the Babli (Note 205) this is one version of the preceding baraita; another version denies the obligation., as by the following. Rebbi Immi and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince went down to the hot springs of Gadara208The place were calendar computations and proclamations were held and all leading scholars of the time came together. The names of persons involved here are probably corrupt. R. Immi cannot ask for instruction from R. Jeremiah, the student of his colleagues R. Yasa’s student R. Ze`ira. and borrowed silverware from the family Osinos209From the context it appears that these were Gentiles.. They asked Rebbi Jeremiah who said, one must immerse them because they left the impurity of Gentiles and entered the holiness of Israel210This opinion is not found in any other source.. He went out and we want to learn211While the meaning of the sentence is clear, the text is corrupt and cannot be vocalized to make sense as it stands. The people who asked R. Jeremiah did not accept his ruling, they decided to look around for other opinions. Possibly then the sentence was נֵצֵא לַחוּץ וְנִלְמַד “let us go out and study.”. They left and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they said only “who buys”, but the borrower is permitted212In the Babli, loc. cit., a statement of R. Naḥman (bar Jacob).. Then even vessels213New earthenware vessels, not covered by reference to Num. 31:21–24.. Rebbi Hoshaia bought vessels and immersed them214As a matter of practice, not theoretical obligation.. Here you say, one washes them clean and they are pure. But there you say, one cleanses them in boiling water. One is more stringent with the abominations of Gentiles215It is difficult to make sense of this passage. Most probably the explanation of Pene Moshe is correct that the Mishnah here requires that spit and grill be cleansed in fire whereas in Mishnah Zevaḥim 11:7 it is only required that spit and grill used in the Temple be cleaned by boiling water. The answer is that while the cleansing of the utensils in the Temple is a biblical requirement (Lev. 6:21) the rabbinic requirement of cleansing from forbidden cooking follows rules that are more strict.. A knife one sticks into the ground three times and it is enough216In the Babli, 76b, ten times in hard ground, and only for a knife without depressions.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: That is for a small knife. But a large knife needs to become white hot, and in its being white hot it is necessary that sparks fly from it217The Babli, loc. cit., makes a difference between a knife used for cold food which can be cleansed in the ground and one used hot which needs cleansing in boiling water..