Talmud zu Schemot 16:37

MISHNAH: The easy ones for demay²The definition of demay is given in the Introduction. The “easy ones” are those to which the laws of demay do not apply and which may be bought from any source without separating heave or tithe. are shitin³S. Lieberman has convincingly argued that שיתין is a contraction of שחיתין “garbage fruit” in the Galilean dialect which had no ח sound (compare Peah 2:5, Note 86.) It will be explained that these are figs growing under the leaves. Since figs need much sun to ripen, normally figs grow on top of the leaves, exposed to the sun. Those growing under the leaves remain hard and inedible at harvest time and are not usually harvested. Hence, these figs are to be considered abandoned property after the harvest and are not subject to any laws of heave and tithes., lotus fruit⁴Definition of Maimonides, Arabic אַלנַבַּק. In some Mishnah and Tosephta manuscripts the reading is דימין and Caftor Waperach, ed. Luncz, Jerusalem 1899, p. 526, notes that in Falastini Arabic the fruit is called אַלדוּם., the fruit of the service tree, white figs⁵Identification of R. Joḥanan in the Babli (Berakhot 40b)., and sycamore figs, fallen dates⁶Either fallen because they are rotten or wormy inside or knocked down by a windstorm., fennel⁷See later, Note 55; cf. I. Löw, Flora der Juden 3, p. 462. Maimonides declares it to be “a relative of dill.” The Arukh declares it to be wild grapes, Italian lambrusco. This follows the Babli (Berakhot 40b) which defines it to be grapes that ripen only after the harvest., and capers⁸Concurrent definition of Arukh (cappero) and Maimonides. This refers to the fruit only.. Also in Judea sumac, vinegar, and coriander. Rebbi Jehudah says, all shitin are free except those from a tree bearing fruit twice a year, all lotus fruit are free except lotus fruit from Shiqmanah⁹Identified as a village Sycaminon at the foot of Mt. Carmel, South of Haifa., and all sycamore fruits are free except those cracked open¹⁰Cracked open while still on the tree, they will become sweet enough to qualify as human food. The others are only considered animal fodder. The sweetness of cracked sycamores was already noted by Pliny, Naturalis Historia, Book XIII, §56. In all these instances, R. Jehudah insists that the fruits do not grow wild and/or are not abandoned..

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday falls on a Friday,” etc. It is written⁵Ex. 16:23. The simple translation of the verse would be: Bake what you want to bake, and cook what you want to cook., what you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. Rebbi Eliezer says, one bakes on the basis of the baked, and one cooks on the basis of the cooked⁶Mekhilta dR. Ismael Beshallaḥ Wayassa` Parashah 4. Babli 15b; partially Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 113.
As explained later, the argument presupposes that the basic rules of the Sabbath had not been explained on the occasion of the Manna but earlier at Mara where it is said (Ex. 15:25): There He gave him law and rules and there He tried him (Babli Sanhedrin 56b). In that case the rules given on the first Sabbath with the manna may apply to a special case, which is interpreted that of a holiday falling on aFriday, and R. Eliezer reads the verse as “if you baked for the Sabbath before the holiday, you may bake on the holiday for the Sabbath; if you cooked for the Sabbath before the holiday, you may cook on the holiday for the Sabbath;” explaining the position of the House of Shammai. R. Joshua, the exponent of the House of Hillel, reads, “if either you baked or cooked for the Sabbath before the start of the holiday, you may bake or cook on the holiday for the Sabbath.”. Rebbi Joshua says, one bakes and cooks on the basis of the cooked. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? What you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? What you will bake and what you will cook cook. Rebbi Eliezer⁷Either “R. Eliezer” is a misreading for “R. Eleazar” (the Amora) or, more likely, a word is missing and one has to understand “the argument of R. Eliezer (and R. Joshua) presupposes that the rules of the Sabbath were given at Mara.” said, this follows him who said that the Sabbath was given at Mara. But following him who said that at Alush⁸Which according to Num. 33:13 was the station just preceding Rephidim which in Ex. is mentioned as the next resting place after the introduction of the manna. the Sabbath was given, they are at Alush and the warning is given at Alush⁹If Ex. 16:23 is the first explanation of the rules of the Sabbath, it must refer to a common Sabbath and not the rare case of a Sabbath preceded by a holiday. In that case the verse must be read as in Note 3.. Come and look, from the Torah it is forbidden and an eruv tavshilin makes it permitted¹⁰If one accepts that the rules of the Sabbath were given at Alush one is forced to accept that one may not prepare on any day something for a day of lesser holiness, but may prepare for a day of greater holiness. Then by biblical standards one is forbidden on a holiday to prepare for a weekday but is permitted to prepare for the Sabbath, and the requirement of an eruv tavshilin is a restriction, not a leniency. Babli Pesaḥim 46b.? Rebbi Abbahu said, it would be logical that one should bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath¹¹The eruv tavshilin is a rabbinic “fence around the Law.”. If you would say so, one would bake and cook on the holiday for a weekday¹²Mishnah Šabbat 15:3. An action permitted on the Sabbath itself then cannot be forbidden in preparation for the Sabbath.. Come and look, one makes the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath, but one does not bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, why may one make the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath? Since one may make the beds on Friday night for the Sabbath day¹³Since it is not obvious that preparing food on the holiday for the Sabbath is permitted, the institution of the eruv tavshilin is justified.. Could one bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath? One may not bake and cook on the night of the Sabbath for the Sabbath day¹²Mishnah Šabbat 15:3. An action permitted on the Sabbath itself then cannot be forbidden in preparation for the Sabbath..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was taken out by Gentiles,” etc. Otherwise²¹Translating G; the text of L makes little sense. what would we say? He should be considered like someone who left with permission²²Since he did not leave intentionally or even accidentally. Either he was taken by force or he left when insane and not obligated to keep any commandment. and he should have 2’000 cubits in every direction. Therefore [it is necessary]²³Added from G. to say that “he only has four cubits.” From where the four cubits? Stay everybody at his spot²⁴Ex. 16:29.. And from where 2’000 cubits? A person should not leave his place on the Seventh Day²⁴Ex. 16:29.. Or switching, as (we have stated) [it was stated so:]²⁵The correct text is that of G in brackets since the quote is a baraita, not a Mishnah as implied by the text of L (in parentheses). Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 262 (Yalqut Shimˋony Qonteros Aḥaron, ed. Ginzberg p. 318, Siddur Rash i #461.) “Issy ben Aqiba says “place, place”²⁶An argument by “equal cut”; the meaning of a word does not change from one use in the Pentateuch to another.. It is said here place, and it is said there, I shall Give you a place²⁷Ex. 21:13. The reference is to the cities of refuge which as levitic cities included a domain extending 2’000 cubits outside the built-up area.. Since the place mentioned there includes 2’000 cubits, so the place mentioned here includes 2’000 cubits.” ²⁸Tosephta 3:11, Babli 48a, Tanḥuma Buber Bemidbar #9 (p. 8, Note 74)“The four cubits which they mentioned are his full length and outstretched arms²⁹When he lies down with arms out-stretched behind his head. These justifications point more to a (Greek) cubit of 63cm than one of 55cm; cf. the Introduction.. Rebbi Jehudah says, he and three cubits³⁰The text of the Tosephta seems to make more sense: “3 cubits for his body and in addition 4 cubits so he can take …”. This reading is required since the bottom of an amphora is at least one cubit in diameter; if he is permitted to move it from above his head to below his feet he already has at least 5 cubits., so he can take an amphora from above his head and put it below his feet.” If he relieves himself, he relieves himself at the side; if he prays, he prays in the diagonal³²The meaning of this sentence is not clear; every explanation must be tentative. Since a person may not stay in two different domains on one Sabbath, and since the person started the Sabbath in his domain, it would be logical to infer that once he leaves this domain he is without a domain and if his 4 cubits intersect with an established Sabbath domain he may walk through the entire domain. But if his 4 feet constitute his new domain then intersection with any other domain is irrelevant for him..

When the ark was hidden, there were hidden with it the flask of Manna, the bottle of anointing oil, Aaron’s staff with its almonds and flowers, and the chest which the Philistines returned as a reparation sacrifice for Israel’s God. Who hid it? Josiah hid it. When he saw that it was written: The Eternal will lead you and your king whom you will have put above you, to a people whom neither you nor your fathers had known, he started and hid it. That is what is written: He said to the Levites, who instruct all of Israel, the ones holy to the Eternal, put the Ark into the House that Salomon, son of David, King of Israel, built; you do not have to carry it on your shoulder.” He said, if it is exiled with you to Babylonia, you will never return it to its place. But now, serve the Eternal, your God, and his people Israel.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the tenth of an ephah and breeches obstruct⁵⁴The presentation of twelve breads which is the daily offering of the High Priest (Note 26) and the initiation of offering of a common priest (Lev. 6:13) as well as the breeches which are part of the priests’ holy garments (Ex. 28:42–43), even though they are mentioned neither in the instructions for the initiation rites given to Moses (Ex. 28) nor in the record of the execution of these instructions (Lev. 8), are necessary and the omission of the offering or failure to wear the breeches would have invalidated the entire proceedings. Babli 5b.. What is the reason? Both are “making”⁵⁵It is held that every commandment using the verb עשה requires strict adherence to the rules given by this verb. The verb is used for the initiation of a priest in Lev.6:14, for the high priest in Lev. 6:15, and Moses is ordered to “make breeches” for the priests in Ex. 28:42.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, and do with Aaron and his sons so⁵⁶Ex. 29:35. The verse continues, all that I commanded you., all which is written in the Chapter obstructs. This comes following what Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: this is the word⁵⁷Lev. 8:5, the declaration of Moses to the people explaining the initiation rites., and this is the word⁵⁸Ex. 29:1, the instruction for future initiation rites., even reading the Chapter obstructs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, anything obstructing for future generations obstructs here, [and anything not obstructing for future generations does not obstruct here.] What do you have? The leaning of hands⁵⁹The leaning of hands of Aaron and his sons on the heads of the sacrificial animals (Ex. 29:10,15,19) which for the initiation rites is an essential act but in the rules of sacrifices (Lev. 1–5) is prescribed only for private offerings, and in no case would the failure to follow the requirement disqualify the sacrifice. and the remainders of the blood⁶⁰The remainder of the blood collected by the Cohen after the required sprinkling of blood on the altar walls has to be poured into the base of the altar. But this act is not required for validity of the sacrifice; if the blood becomes impure after the sprinkling, the blood has to be otherwise disposed of but the sacrifice is unquestionably valid. These cases represent the points of difference between R. Ḥanina and R. Joḥanan. Babli 4b (bottom), switching attributions. which are not obstructing in future generations are obstructing here. Rebbi Ḥanina said, the diadem and Aaron’s mitre precede the sons’ belts⁶¹In dressing of the priests in initiation.. Jehudah the great says, you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons⁶²Ex. 29:9, the commandment to Moses.. Rebbi Idi said, what you are saying is as a meritorious deed. But as a commandment, Moses brought near Aaron and his sons and washed them in water, and after that, he put the vest on him, and after that, Moses brought Aaron and his sons near and clothed them with shirts⁶³Lev. 8:6,7,13, description of the execution..

⁹⁶Slightly differently and in the name of R. Levi Cant. rabba5(2); cf. Babli Sanhedrin98a. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: If Israel would repent on one day, David’s son would immediately come. What is the reason? Today, if you will listen to His voice⁹⁷Ps.95:7.. ⁹⁸Midrash Ps.95[3]; cf. Babli Šabbat118b. Rebbi Levi said, if Israel would keep one Sabbath following its rules, David’s son would immediately come. What is the reason? Moses said, eat it today, for Sabbath is this day to the Eternal⁹⁹Ex. 16:25., etc. One day. And it says, by repentance and satisfaction you will be helped⁶⁴Is. 30:15. The interpretation agrees with the interpretation in Targum Jonathan ben Uziel.. By keeping the Sabbath and staying put you will be freed.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest⁵⁸Since the argument of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is about rabbinic restrictions because of Sabbath rest, it is implied that the list of items in Mishnah 2 about which R. Eliezer dissents contains only rabbinic prohibitions. But bringing anything from outside the Sabbath domain is a biblical prohibition.? ⁵⁹The next sentences are from Eruvin 3, Notes 127–131. This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written⁶⁰Ex. 12:9. This belongs to the discussion there whether all pentateuchal prohibitions are legally prosecutable, or only those formulated as לֹא whereas those introduced by the negation אַל are simply moral obligations. Since the latter then cannot be enforced in court by biblical standards, they are equal in rank to rabbinic prohibitions., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written⁶¹Ex. 16:28., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition⁶²This is the end of the parallel in Eruvin3.. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest⁶³This is making a wound, biblically forbidden under the category of slaughtering.? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart⁶⁴In Mishnah 1, he does not read “cutting its wart”.. That is because he thinks it⁶⁵Cutting the wart. Everybody agrees that biting off the wart is unprofessional, therefore does not create liability, and is only rabbinically forbidden. is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? ⁶⁶Quoted from Eruvin 10(7), Note 64. It is stated there that cutting the wart creates liability only if done professionally with a surgeon’s knife. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting⁶⁷Therefore not causing biblical liability. Babli Šabbat 94b., and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling⁶⁸Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Mishnah Parah 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside⁶⁹If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Mishnaiot 3,4. but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices⁷⁰Since R. Joshua’s argument is about the slaughterer, not the animal being slaughtered.? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering⁷¹Their discussion makes sense only if there is no difference whether one speaks about sacrifice or sacrificer. This confirms what R. Zeˋira said..

MISHNAH: If he slaughtered it for those who cannot not eat it⁹⁸For example a sick person who will not be able to eat a full olive-sized piece of meat., for those who did not subscribe to it⁹⁹The Pesaḥ may be eaten only by people who beforehand formed a group to this purpose, Ex. 12:4., for the uncircumcised,¹⁰⁰He is forbidden to participate even if he is a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised, Ex. 12:48. or for the impure¹⁰¹If he will be impure in the evening, such as a person impure in the impurity of the dead who is impure for seven days. For an impure person eating sancta is a deadly sin, Lev. 7:21., it is disqualified¹⁰²The meat of a simple sacrifice must be eaten; it may not be slaughtered in the absence of people who would consume it.. For those who eat it and those who will not eat it, for those who subscribed to it and those who did not subscribe to it, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, or for the pure and the impure, it is qualified¹⁰³Since people may decide to join the group until the blood is poured on the walls of the altar, which is after slaughtering, the slaughter is qualified as long as there is at least one person for whom it is validly slaughtered.. If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified since it was said about it: between the evenings¹⁰⁴See Halakhah 1.. If one slaughtered it before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified, on condition that somebody stir the blood until after the blood of the daily evening sacrifice was poured;¹⁰⁵Since any sacrifice may be slaughtered by a lay person and the sacral activities only start with the reception of the blood in a sacral vessel by a Cohen, the status of a Pesaḥ slaughtered before the daily sacrifice, whose blood was stirred to prevent jellying and which then was poured on the walls of the altar after the daily sacrifice, is identical with one which was slaughtered after the daily sacrifice. but if the blood was poured it is qualified¹⁰⁶Even if the pouring was done before the daily sacrifice. Cf. Note 20..

⁵⁷Babli Yoma 52b, Horaiot 12a, Keritut 5b; Tosephta Kippurim 2:15, Soṭah 13:1; Seder ‘Olam 24; Abot dR. Nathan A 31. In the Babli and the sources depending on it, some Tannaïm hold that the Ark was brought to Babylon. When the ark was hidden, there were hidden with it the flask of Manna⁵⁸Ex. 16:33–34., the bottle of anointing oil⁵⁹Ex. 30:22–33., Aaron’s staff with its flowers and almonds⁶⁰Num. 17:25., and the chest which the Philistines returned as a reparation sacrifice for Israel’s God⁶¹1Sam. 6.. Who hid it? Josiah! When he saw that it was written⁶²Deut. 28:36.: “The Eternal will lead you and your king whom you will have put above you, to a people whom neither you nor your fathers had known,” he started and hid it. That is what is written⁶³2Chr. 35:3. The Levites had not carried the Ark since the time of Samuel.: “He said to the Levites, who instruct all of Israel, the ones holy to the Eternal, put the Ark into the House that Salomon, son of David, king of Israel, built; you do not have to carry it on your shoulder.” He said, if it is exiled with you to Babylonia, you will never return it to its place. But “⁶³2Chr. 35:3. The Levites had not carried the Ark since the time of Samuel. now, serve the Eternal, your God, and his people Israel.”

There, we have stated¹²¹Mishnah Miqwaot 2:2. The Mishnah states that if a person was impure by biblical standards he can be purified only by immersion in a miqweh which is unquestionably valid. But if his impurity is rabbinic, immersion in a miqweh will purify him unless the miqweh is unquestionably invalid. R. Yose disagrees and holds that the principle of permanence of the status quo ante also applies to rabbinic impurity and the miqweh must be unquestionably valid.: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof¹²²If there are a group of items, the status of one is certain but that of the others is uncertain, one may assume that the other items share the status of the certain one unless proven otherwise (cf. Demay 2:1 2^nd of paragraph; Terumot 4:8 Note 83.) The Mishnah quotes the case that there be two miqwaot, one of them known to be invalid, while the other might be valid. If the person does not know in which of the two he immersed, R. Yose holds that it must have been the invalid one.. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]¹²³The text in parentheses is from L, that in brackets from G. The preceding argument is rejected, R. Yose applies the principle of permanence of the status quo ante even if nothing is certain and there is only one item.. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas¹⁷In other sources the name is אבטולמוס (Ptolemaios). testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified¹⁸Since the eruv is a rabbinic institution to allow carrying in or walking to places biblically permitted, in cases of doubt one has to permit..” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted¹²⁴The two cases cannot be compared. The rules of impurity are biblical even if they are extended to cover cases of only rabbinic impurity. The rules of eruv are all rabbinic.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency¹²⁵He holds the opposite view. The Mishnah Miqwaot clearly distinguishes between biblical and rabbinic impurity and decrees leniency only for rabbinic cases; for him the rules of eruv teḥumim are all biblical; only eruv ḥaṣerot is rabbinical.. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction¹²⁶A generally recognized principle, cf. Ketubot 1:1 Note 21. But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah¹²⁷Babli 17b. This proves at least that leaving one’s Sabbath domain is a biblical violation.. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation¹²⁸A Sabbath violation of one of the 39 forbidden categories of work is punishable by stoning if there are witnesses or divine extirpation otherwise. We do not find flogging as punishment for any Sabbath violation.? He said to him, is there not written¹²⁹Ex. 12:9., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written¹³⁰Ex. 16:29. Even though this is the sequence of the sentences also in G, it is clear that the order has to be inverted. R. Jonathan first quoted Ex. 16:29 as proof that leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a biblical violation. Since no punishment is stated, the standard sanction of flogging applies. To this R. Ḥiyya replies that the standard sanction applies only to prohibitions introduced by לֹא, not to admonitions formulated with אַל. R. Jonathan retorts that this explanation is impossible since eating the Passover sacrifice raw is a punishable transgression forbidden by אַל., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition¹³¹It is unresolved whether leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a transgression punishable in court. But the institution of eruv certainly is a rabbinic interpretation of the rules.. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person¹³²In the interpretation of biblical prohibitions, matters of doubt are treated differently when a person is involved who can be interrogated about the situation. Then the rules of resolution of doubts can be invoked only after the facts have been investigated. But if the person involved is deaf mute and unable to communicate by sign language the rules are applied immediately.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned¹³³The preceding makes sense if the eruv still exists. But if it was burned (as mentioned in the Mishnah) it should be impossible to invoke a principle of permanence of the status quo ante.? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi¹³⁴This is the text of L which probably is correct. In G: Rav. Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear¹³⁵The 2’000 cubits counted from the city walls are in imitation of the suburban space allotted to the levitic cities (Num. 35:5) where the Sabbath is not mentioned. The measure therefore has only rabbinic status. Babli 36a, Beṣah 36b. The Sadducee Damascus Document (CD A x) accepts a limit of 1’000 cubits (Num. 35:4) for humans and 2’000 cubits for animals (CD A xi) as biblical.. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel¹³⁶This is the general tradition that the diameter of the encampment of the Israelites as described in Num. 2 was 3 parsah (12 mil or 90 itinerant stadia): Ševiˋit 6:1 (Note 28), copied in Gittin 1:2 (Note 94), Babli Berakhot 54b, Eruvin 53b, Yoma 75b..

HALAKHAH: “One does not close with the Chariot¹⁸⁸Ez. Chapter 1, the traditional reading from Prophets on Pentecost., but Rebbi Jehudah permits. And Rebbi Eliezer says, one does not close with tell Jerusalem its abominations¹⁸⁹Ez. Chap. 16.. It happened that somebody closed with tell Jerusalem its abominations. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, may this man go and be informed of the abominations of his mother. They checked him out and he was found to be a bastard.¹⁹⁰Babli 25b, Tosephta 3:34.”

These are the things that were made and then hidden: The Tent of Meeting, and the items inside it; the Ark and the broken tablets; the jar of manna; the rod [of Moses]; [the flask of anointing oil]; the staff of Aaron, with its almonds and flowers; the priestly garments and garments of the high priest. But the mortar and pestle of the House of Avtinus, the table, the lamp, the curtain, and the headband of the high priest – those are still kept in Rome.