Doing so is akin to feeding Jews consecrated meat outside the permitted area, as due to its resemblance to the Paschal lamb it could be misleading. The Gemara analyzes this statement: A goat roasted whole, yes, it is prohibited; a goat not roasted whole, no, it is not prohibited. This contradicts Rav, who prohibited roasting even ordinary meat. The Sages say that this is the distinction: With regard to a goat roasted whole, there is no difference if one said it is for Passover, and there is no difference if one did not say it is for Passover. In either case, it looks like a sacrifice and it is prohibited. With regard to a goat not roasted whole, if one specified that it is for Passover, yes, it is prohibited because it appears that he is consecrating it as a sacrifice. However, if one did not specify that it is for Passover, no, it is not prohibited, as there is no need for concern.

Rav Aḥa teaches this baraita about Theodosius in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Sheshet strongly objected to this: Granted, according to the one who learns it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it works out well. However, according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, does it work out well? Didn’t we learn in a mishna about a dispute with regard to one who consecrated an item for a purpose for which it was unsuited, e.g., a case where one sought to bring a meal-offering of barley, although meal-offerings may be brought only from wheat? In that case, the Rabbis say he is required to bring a meal-offering of wheat because in the first part of his statement he vowed to bring a meal-offering.

Rabbi Shimon exempts him from any obligation, as in his opinion, he did not donate in the manner typical of donors. In other words, Rabbi Shimon relates to the statement: A meal-offering of barley, as a single entity. Since no meal-offering of that kind exists, one is not required to bring an offering at all. Similarly, with regard to Passover, since one can consecrate only a living animal as a sacrifice and cannot consecrate meat as a sacrifice, if one declares: This meat is for Passover, it is in no way similar to consecrating an animal, and the meat has no sanctity.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, does it work out well? Didn’t Rava say: With regard to a meal-offering of barley, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of his statement. The Sages disagreed with regard to the halakhot of consecration in a case where one consecrates an animal for two objectives in the same statement, e.g., as both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. According to Rabbi Meir, one is held accountable for the beginning of his statement. Since he mentioned the burnt-offering first, the animal assumes the status of a burnt-offering. However, Rabbi Yosei says that one’s entire statement is significant, and that the animal is consecrated for two sacrifices. The owner must wait until the animal becomes blemished, redeem it, and use the money to purchase a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei’s opinion concerning a barley meal-offering. He maintains that one is held accountable not only for his first expression, i.e., that it is a meal-offering, but also for his second expression, i.e., that it is of barley. In that case, the second part of his statement negates the first part.

What, is it not concluded from the fact that Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that if one did not donate in the manner typical of donors, his act is meaningless? If that is the case, then any difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon would be similarly difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara rejects this: No, although Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the above incident. Was Theodosius of Rome a great man in terms of his Torah scholarship, and the Sages refrained from ostracizing him in deference to the Torah that he studied? Or, was he a violent man who could not be punished due to his local influence?

Come and hear: This was also taught by Theodosius of Rome: What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see that led them to deliver themselves to the fiery furnace for sanctification of the name of God during the rule of Nebuchadnezzar rather than worship idols under duress?

They drew an a fortiori inference on their own from the plague of frogs in Egypt. With regard to frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, it is written: “And the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into your house, and into your bedchamber, and onto your bed, and into the houses of your servants, and upon your people, and into their ovens and kneading bowls” (Exodus 7:28). When are kneading bowls found near the oven? You must say that it is when the oven is hot. If in fulfilling the command to harass the Egyptians, the frogs entered burning ovens, all the more so, we, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, should deliver ourselves to be killed in the fiery furnace for that purpose. Apparently, Theodosius taught Torah in public, which indicates that he was a great man.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: Theodosius was one who cast the profits from merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars. He would lend them money and enter into partnership with them so they could open businesses, and that is praiseworthy, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who casts merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars is rewarded and sits in the heavenly academy, as it is stated: “For in the shadow of wisdom, is the shadow of money” (Ecclesiastes 7:12). One who provides Torah scholars with money will merit being with them in the shadow of wisdom.

MISHNA: The mishna discusses additional differences between local customs. In a place where people were accustomed to kindle a lamp in the house on Yom Kippur evenings, one kindles it. In a place where people were accustomed not to kindle a lamp, one does not kindle it. However, even in a place where the custom is not to kindle lamps in houses, one kindles in synagogues and study halls, in deference to these places. Similarly, lamps should be kindled in dark alleyways, so people will not be hurt, and next to the sick.

GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they both intended to achieve the same objective, i.e., to distance people from sin, as conjugal relations are prohibited on Yom Kippur. Those who said that one kindles a lamp believe that because people do not engage in relations while a lamp is lit, the lamp will discourage intimacy. Those who maintain the opposite believe that spouses who are unable to see each other will not be tempted to engage in conjugal relations, and therefore it is preferable not to have a lamp lit on Yom Kippur. Rav Yehoshua said that Rava taught: “Your people are all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:21). Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they intended only to achieve the same objective, fulfilling a mitzva. Even though different places have different customs, the Jewish people all aspire to sanctity.

On the topic of kindling a lamp for Yom Kippur, the Gemara discusses a related point. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One should recite the blessing over fire: Who creates the lights of fire, only at the conclusion of Shabbat, since the conclusion of Shabbat is the time of its original creation. A certain Elder said to him, and some say it was Rabba bar bar Ḥana who said: That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara relates: Ulla was riding on a donkey and going along, and Rabbi Abba was going along on his right and Rabba bar bar Ḥana on his left. Rabbi Abba said to Ulla: Is it true that you said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that one recites the blessing over fire only at the conclusion of Shabbat, not at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, since the time of its original creation is the conclusion of Shabbat?

Since Ulla never transmitted that statement, he understood that it must have been Rabba bar bar Ḥana who heard it from Rabbi Yoḥanan and transmitted it when he came from Eretz Yisrael. Ulla turned around and looked angrily at Rabba bar bar Ḥana for misquoting Rabbi Yoḥanan. Still, Ulla said nothing. However, Rabba bar bar Ḥana understood what had happened and said to him: I did not say anything about that matter; rather, what I said was about that which the reciter of the tannaitic literature taught in a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan in which Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat, even in a place where they said not to kindle a lamp on Yom Kippur, one kindles in deference to Shabbat. Rabbi Yoḥanan answered after him and completed the statement: And the Rabbis prohibit kindling a lamp even when Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat. Ulla said to Rabbi Abba: Let it be that Rabbi Yoḥanan indeed made this statement.

Rav Yosef read the following verse about this event: “Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water;