akiba

How do they invite [one another to recite the Birkat Hamazon]? If there are three, he [the one saying Birkat Hamazon] says, “Let us bless [Him of whose food we have eaten].” If there are three and him he says, “Bless [Him of whose food we have eaten]” If there are ten, he says, “Let us bless our God [of whose food we have eaten].” If there are ten and he says, “Bless.” It is the same whether there are ten or ten myriads (ten ten thousands). If there are a hundred he says, “Let us bless the Lord our God [of whose food we have eaten]. If there are a hundred and him he says, “Bless.” If there are a thousand he says “Let us bless the Lord our God, the God of Israel [of whose food we have eaten].” If there are a thousand and him he says “Bless.” If there are ten thousand he says, “Let us bless the Lord our God, the God of Israel, the God of hosts, who dwells among the cherubim, for the food which we have eaten.” If there are ten thousand and him he says, “Bless.” Corresponding to his blessing the others answer after him, “Blessed be the Lord our God the God of Israel, the God of hosts, who dwells among the cherubim, for the food which we have eaten.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: According to the number of the congregation, they bless, as it says, “In assemblies bless God, the Lord, O you who are from the fountain of Israel.” Rabbi Akiba said: What do we find in the synagogue? Whether there are many or few the he says, “Bless the Lord your God.” Rabbi Ishmael says: “Bless the Lord your God who is blessed.”

One who gives his field a striped appearance and leaves behind moist stalks: Rabbi Akiva says: he gives peah from each and every stripe. But the sages say: from one stripe for the whole field. The sages agree with Rabbi Akiba that one who sows dill or mustard in three places must give peah from each place.

If he was passing through a vineyard, and seeds fell from him, or [seeds] went [into the field] with manure, or with [irrigation] water, or if he was [in a grain field] scattering seed and the wind blew some behind him [into a vineyard], everything is permitted. If the wind blew the seed in front of him [into a vineyard], Rabbi Akiba says: If it has produced small shoots, he must turn the soil. If it has reached the stage of green ears, he must beat them out. If it has grown into grain, it must be burnt.

Up until when are they called saplings? Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: until they are permitted for common use. But Rabbi Joshua says: until they are seven years old. Rabbi Akiba says: [the word] sapling, [it goes] according to its name. A tree which had been cut down and then produced fresh shoots: if one handbreadth or less, they are regarded as saplings, if more than a handbreadth they are regarded as trees, the words of Rabbi Shimon.

One who trims grape vines, or cuts reeds: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: he must leave [uncut at least] one handbreadth. But Rabbi Akiba says: he may cut them in the usual manner, with the axe, sickle or saw, or with whatever he pleases. A tree that had split may be tied up in the seventh year, not that it may heal, but only that it should not widen.

A hide which they oiled with seventh year oil: Rabbi Eliezer says: it must be burnt; But the sages say: he must [buy and] eat [food] for its equivalent. They said in front of Rabbi Akiba: Rabbi Eliezer used to say, A hide which they smeared with seventh year oil must be burnt. He replied: Silence! I won’t tell you what Rabbi Eliezer actually said in this connection.

If one gathered moist herbs, he may eat them until the sweet [herbs in the field] have dried up. And if he gathered dry [herbs], [he may eat them] until the second rainfall. Leaves of reeds and of leaves of the vine [may be eaten] until they fall from the stems. But if he gathered them dry, they may be eaten until the second rainfall. Rabbi Akiba says: in all these cases, [they may be eaten] until the second rainfall.

One who wishes to give more terumah: Rabbi Eliezer says: he may give up to a tenth part, as in the case of heave-offering of tithe. [If he gave] more than this [measure] he must make it terumah of tithe for other produce. Rabbi Ishmael says: half non-sacred produce and half terumah. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiba say: as long as he retains a part as non-sacred produce.

Rabbi Joshua says: black figs can bring up white ones, and white ones can bring up black ones. In the case of cakes of figs, the large can bring up the small, and the small can bring up the large. Round cakes of figs can bring up square cakes, and square cakes can bring up round ones. Rabbi Eliezer prohibits this. Rabbi Akiba says: if the kind which fell in is known, then the one kind cannot bring up the other kind, but if the kind is not known, the one kind can bring up the other.

Rabbi Yose says: Anything stewed with [terumah] beets becomes forbidden, because they impart a flavor. Rabbi Shimon says: cabbage from a field artificially irrigated [that is stewed] with [terumah] cabbage from a field watered by rain, is forbidden because it absorbs. Rabbi Akiba says: all things cooked together are permitted, except those with meat. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: liver renders other things forbidden, but does not become forbidden, because it gives off [flavor] but does not absorb.

Rabban Gamaliel says: shoots of fenugreek, of mustard, and of white beans are liable [to tithe]. Rabbi Eliezer says: as for the caper bush, tithes must be given from the shoots, the berries and the blossoms. Rabbi Akiba says: only the berries are tithed since they [alone] count as fruit.

Vetches of second tithe may be eaten when still tender. And they may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. If they became unclean: Rabbi Tarfon says: they must be divided among pieces of dough. But the sages say: they may be redeemed. [Vetches] of terumah: Bet Shammai says: they must be soaked and rubbed in a state of purity, but may be given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Bet Hillel says: they must be soaked [only] in a state of purity, but they may be rubbed and given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Shammai says: they must be eaten dry [only]. Rabbi Akiba says: whatever is done with them may be done in a state of impurity.

For Rabbi Meir used to say: anything that is normally [sold] by counting causes [a mixture] to become consecrated [in even the smallest amount]. But the sages say only six things consecrate [a mixture in even the smallest amount], and Rabbi Akiba says seven [things]. And these are they: Nuts with soft shells; badan pomegranates; stopped-up casks; beet shoots; cabbage-heads; Greek pumpkins. Rabbi Akiba says: also loaves [baked by] a householder. To those to which orlah applies [they prohibit the mixture] as orlah, [to those of which] kilayim of the vineyard apply [they prohibit the mixture as] kilayim of the vineyard.

For Rabbi Meir used to say: anything that is normally [sold] by counting causes [a mixture] to become consecrated [in even the smallest amount]. But the sages say only six things consecrate [a mixture in even the smallest amount], and Rabbi Akiba says seven [things]. And these are they: Nuts with soft shells; badan pomegranates; stopped-up casks; beet shoots; cabbage-heads; Greek pumpkins. Rabbi Akiba says: also loaves [baked by] a householder. To those to which orlah applies [they prohibit the mixture] as orlah, [to those of which] kilayim of the vineyard apply [they prohibit the mixture as] kilayim of the vineyard.

One whom Gentiles, or an evil spirit, have taken out [beyond the Shabbat border] has no more than four cubits [in which to move]. If they brought him back, it is as if he had never gone out. If they took him to another town, or if they put him in a pen or a sahar: Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah say he may move throughout the entire area; But Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva says: he has only four cubits [in which to move]. It once happened that they were coming from Brindisi and their ship sailed out to sea [on Shabbat]. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah walked about throughout its area, but Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiba did not move beyond four cubits because they wanted to be stringent upon themselves.

Rabban Gamaliel says: three women may knead at the same time and bake in one oven, one after the other. But the sages say: three women may be engaged with the dough at the same time: one kneads, one shapes and one bakes. Rabbi Akiba says: not all women and not all kinds of wood and not all ovens are alike. This is the general principle: if it [the dough] rises, she should slap it with [hands dipped in] cold water.

The second count:who slaughters [the daily regular offering], who sprinkles [the blood], who removes the ashes from the inner altar, who removes the ashes from the candlestick, 5-10) Who takes the limbs [of the offering up to the ramp], the head and the [right] hind-leg, the two forelegs, the tail and the [left] hind-leg, the breast and the throat, the two flanks, the innards, the fine flour, the cakes and the wine. Altogether thirteen priests merited a task. Ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiba in the name of Rabbi Joshua: [the daily offering] was offered up in the way it walks.

If he read in the garments of linen, he would then sanctify his hands and feet, strip off his clothes, go down and immerse himself, come up and dry himself. They brought him the golden clothes, he put them on, sanctified his hands and feet, went out, offered up his own ram and the ram of the people, and the seven unblemished, one-year-old-lambs, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiba said: these were offered up together with the morning tamid of the morning, The bull for the whole burnt offering and the goat which is offered up outside were offered up together with the dusk tamid.

If a widow whose ketubah was two hundred zuz sold [land] worth a maneh for two hundred zuz or [land] worth two hundred zuz for one maneh, she has received her ketubah. If her kethubah was one maneh, and she sold [land] worth a maneh and a denar’ for one maneh, her sale is void. Even if she says, “I will return the denar to the heirs”, her sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: her sale is always valid unless there was so much land there as to allow her to leave a field of nine kab, and from a garden an area of half a kab, or, according to Rabbi Akiba, a quarter of a kab. If her ketubah was four hundred zuz and she sold [land] to [three] persons, to each for one maneh, and to a fourth [she sold] what was worth a maneh and a denar for one maneh, [the sale] to the last person is void but [the sale] to all the others are valid.

All the substitutes for vows have the validity of vows. Those for haramim have the validity of haramim, And those for oaths have the validity of oaths, And those for nazirite [vows] have the validity of nazirite [vows]. If one says to his fellow, “I am forbidden from you by a vow”; “I am separated from you”; “I am distanced from you”, “that I should eat from yours”, “that I should taste from yours”, he is prohibited. If he says: “I am banned to you”, Rabbi Akiba was inclined to rule stringently. [If one says] “As the vows of the wicked”, he has vowed in respect of being a nazirite, or a sacrifice, or an oath. [If he says] “As the vows of the fit”, he has said nothing. [But if he said] “As their freewill-offerings” he has vowed in respect of being nazirite and a sacrifice.

He who vows abstinence from vegetables is permitted gourds. Rabbi Akiba prohibits. They said to him: And does not a man say to his messenger “Bring me vegetables,” and he replies, “I could find only gourds.” He said to them: That is so! But would he say, “I could find only pulse?” For gourds are included in vegetables, while pulse is not. He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans but permitted the dry species.

If one of the kinds of blood has been sprinkled on her behalf, [the husband] can no longer annul [the vow]. Rabbi Akiba says: even if one of the animals has been slaughtered on her behalf, he can no longer annul [the vow]. When is this true? If she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, but if she is shaving after ritual defilement, he can [still] annul [the vow], because he can say, “I do not want a disgraced woman.” Rabbi says that he can annul [her vow] even if she is shaving [after observing the naziriteship] in purity, since he can say: “I do not want a woman who is shaved.

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving, and products of the vine. All products of the vine join together [to add up to a minimum measure], and he is not liable until he eats an olive’s worth of grapes. According to the earlier mishnah, until he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine. Rabbi Akiba says: even if he soaked his bread in wine and it is enough to make an olive’s worth he is liable.

Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Joshua: for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite must shave, people are liable for entering the sanctuary, and for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite does not shave, people are not liable for one entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Meir said: such [defilement] should not be less serious than [defilement through] a dead creeping thing. Rabbi Akiba said: I argued in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer: Now if on account of a barley-corn’s bulk of bone which does not defile a man by overshadowing, a nazirite shaves should he touch it or carry it, then surely a quarter-log of blood which defiles a man by overshadowing, should cause a nazirite to shave should he touch it or carry it? He replied: What is this Akiva! We do not make here an ‘all the more so’ (a kal vehomer) argument. When I afterwards went and recounted these words to Rabbi Joshua, he said to me, “You spoke well, but thus they have ruled the halakhah.”

Just as the water checks her so the water checks him, as it is said, “And shall enter”, “And shall enter” (Numbers 5:22,. Just as she is prohibited to the husband so is she prohibited to the lover, as it is said, “defiled … and is defiled” (Numbers 5:27,, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Joshua said: thus Zechariah ben Hakatzav used to expound. Rabbi says: twice in the portion, “If she is defiled…defiled”--one referring [to her being prohibited] to the husband and the other to the paramour.

When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased. When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students [of Torah] ceased. When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased. When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy. When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased. When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased. When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men (hasidim) ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men. When Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased. When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished. When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”

The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As is this day’, just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them.

The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As is this day’, just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them.

The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As is this day’, just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them.

He [the rebellious elder] was executed neither by his local court nor by the court at Yavneh, but rather was taken to the great court in Jerusalem and kept there until the [next] festival and executed on the festival, for it says, “And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously” (Deut. 17:13), according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Judah says: “His judgment must not be delayed, but he is executed immediately, and proclamations are written and sent by messengers to all places, “So and so has been sentenced to death at the court.”

“A person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6). If the testimony is sufficiently established by two witnesses, why does Scripture [further] specify three? This is to compare two to three: just as three are competent to incriminate two as perjurers, so are two competent to incriminate three as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as two witnesses are not put to death until both have been incriminated as perjurers, so three are not put to death until all three have been incriminated as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Akiba says: “The third witness was only mentioned in order to be stringent upon him and make his judgement the same as the other two. And if Scripture thus penalizes one who consorts with those who commit a transgression, as [if he is actually] one of those who commits the transgression, how much more so shall he who consorts with those who perform commandments receive a reward as [if he is actually] one of those who performs the commandments!”

If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge]. He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”: ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial. Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum. If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.” If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs. If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another.

Rabbi Eliezer said: “[Scripture says: ‘If any one touch… the carcass of] an impure creeping thing, and it be unknown to him’ (Leviticus 5:2), when the impure creeping thing is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.” Rabbi Akiba said: “[Scripture says:] ‘and it be hidden from him that he is impure’: when his impurity is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.” Rabbi Ishmael said: “[Scripture] twice [says:] ‘and it be hidden from him’, in order to make him liable both for the forgetfulness of the impurity and the forgetfulness of the Temple.”

Oaths are two, subdivided into four. “I swear I shall eat”, and “[I swear] I shall not eat”; “[I swear] I have eaten”, and “[I swear] I have not eaten”. “I swear I shall not eat”, and he ate [even] a minute quantity, he is liable, the words of Rabbi Akiva. They [the Sages] said to Rabbi Akiva: “Where do we find that he who eats a minute quantity is liable, that this one should be liable?” Rabbi Akiba said to them: “But where do we find that he who [merely] speaks brings a sacrifice, that this one should bring a sacrifice?” [If a man says,] “I swear I shall not eat” and he ate and drank, he is liable only once. “I swear I shall not eat and I shall not drink,” and he ate and drank, he is liable twice.

Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, testified concerning four matters: Through all their days the priests never refrained from burning meat which had been defiled by an “offspring” of impurity with meat which had been made impure by a “father” of impurity, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity. Rabbi Akiba added: “Through all their days the priests never shrank from lighting oil which had been rendered unfit by a tevul yom in a lamp made impure by one who was made impure by a corpse, although they were [thereby] increasing its impurity by a [higher] impurity.”

Rabbi Hanina, chief of the priests, said: “All my days I never saw a hide taken out to the place of burning.” Rabbi Akiba said: “From his words we infer that whoever flays the hide of the firstborn beast and it is found to be trefah, the priests may enjoy the use of the hide.” But the Sages say: “[A testimony which consists of] ‘we didn’t see’ is not a proof; rather the hide must be taken out to the place of burning.

Rabbi Yishmael said three things, and Rabbi Akiba disagreed with him. Garlic or unripe grapes or green ears of grain were being crushed [on the eve of the Sabbath] while it is yet day: Rabbi Yishmael says: “He may finish crushing after it grows dark.” But Rabbi Akiba says: “He may not finish.”

Rabbi Yishmael said three things, and Rabbi Akiba disagreed with him. Garlic or unripe grapes or green ears of grain were being crushed [on the eve of the Sabbath] while it is yet day: Rabbi Yishmael says: “He may finish crushing after it grows dark.” But Rabbi Akiba says: “He may not finish.”

Rabbi Akiba declared three things; about two they agreed with him, and about one they disagreed with him. About a lime-burner’s sandal, that it is liable to contract midras impurity; And about the remains of a [broken] oven, that they must be four handbreadths high [in order to retain impurity], whereas they used to say three and [when he said four] they agreed with him. And about one they disagreed with him About a stool, from which two of its covering-boards had been removed, the one beside the other, which Rabbi Akiba pronounces able to contract impurity, but the Sages declare unable to contract impurity.

Rabbi Akiba declared three things; about two they agreed with him, and about one they disagreed with him. About a lime-burner’s sandal, that it is liable to contract midras impurity; And about the remains of a [broken] oven, that they must be four handbreadths high [in order to retain impurity], whereas they used to say three and [when he said four] they agreed with him. And about one they disagreed with him About a stool, from which two of its covering-boards had been removed, the one beside the other, which Rabbi Akiba pronounces able to contract impurity, but the Sages declare unable to contract impurity.

The following things belonging to non-Jews are forbidden [for Jews to use] and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them: wine, or a non-Jew’s vinegar that was formerly wine, Hadrianic earthenware, skins pierced at the animal’s heart. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when its tear is round, [the skin] is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted. Meat which is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted, but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is like a sacrifice to the dead, this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba. With non-Jews going on a pilgrimage [to worship idols] it is forbidden to have any business transactions, but with those returning it is permitted.

If idolaters worship mountains and hills these are permitted; but what is upon them is prohibited, as it is says, “you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take them” (Deut. 7:25). Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [it says] “their gods on the mountains” (Deut. 12:, not their mountains which are their gods; “their gods on the hills” (ibid.), not their hills which are their gods. And why is an asherah prohibited? Because there was manual labour connected with it, and whatever has manual labour connected with it is prohibited. Rabbi Akiba said: let me expound and decide [the interpretation] before you: wherever you find a high mountain or elevated hill or green tree, know that an idolatrous object is there.

If [a Jew] has a house next to an idolatrous shrine and it collapsed, he is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws a distance of four cubits into his own ground and build there. [If the wall] belonged both to him and the shrine, it is judged as being half and half. Its stones, timber and rubbish defile like a creeping thing, as it says, “you shall utterly detest it” (Deut. 7:26). ] Rabbi Akiba says: [it defiles] like a menstruous woman, as it says, “[and you will treat as unclean the silver overlay of your images and the golden plating of your idols]. You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. Out, you will call to them” (Isaiah 30:22), just as a menstruous woman impurifies [an object] by carrying it, so also an idolatrous object defiles by its being carried.

If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful. Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.

They reaped it, put it into the baskets, and brought it to the Temple courtyard; Then they would parch it with fire in order to fulfill the mitzvah that it should be parched [with fire], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they beat it with reeds or stems of plants that the grains should not be crushed, and then they put it into a pipe that was perforated so that the fire might take hold of all of it. They spread it out in the Temple courtyard so that the wind might blow over it. Then they put it into a gristmill and took out of it a tenth [of an ephah of flour] which was sifted through thirteen sieves. What was left over was redeemed and might be eaten by any one; It was liable for hallah but exempt from tithes. Rabbi Akiba made it liable both to hallah and to tithes. He then came to the tenth, put in its oil and its frankincense, poured in the oil, mixed it, waved it, brought it near [to the altar], took from it the handful and burnt it; and the remainder was eaten by the priests.

If one first sliced the esophagus and then cut away the windpipe, or first cut away the windpipe and then sliced the esophagus; or if he sliced one of these organs and paused until the animal died; or if he thrust the knife underneath the second organ and cut it: [In all these cases] Rabbi Yeshevav says: the animal is nevelah; Rabbi Akiva says: it is terefah. Rabbi Yeshevav stated this general rule in the name of Rabbi Joshua: whenever an animal is rendered invalid by a fault in the slaughtering it is nevelah; whenever an animal has been duly slaughtered but is rendered invalid by some other defect it is terefah. And Rabbi Akiba [ultimately] agreed with him.

Rabbi Akiba asked again: If a man slaughtered five sacrifices outside [the Temple] in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable to a separate offering for each act or only to one for them all? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiba did not ask this, but rather concerning one who ate of notar (remnant) from five sacrifices in one spell of unawareness what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or is he liable to one for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Akiba replied: if this is a received tradition we accept it; but if it is only a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal. He [Rabbi Joshua] said: rebut it. He replied: It is not so. For if you hold the view with regard to sacrilege, for in this case one who gives food to another is as guilty as the one who eats it himself, and the person who causes others to derive a benefit from them is as guilty as the person who himself made use of them; furthermore, [small quantities are] reckoned together in the case of sacrilege even after the lapse of a long period, can you say it in connection with notar (remnant) where not one of these laws applies.

Rabbi Akiba asked again: If a man slaughtered five sacrifices outside [the Temple] in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable to a separate offering for each act or only to one for them all? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiba did not ask this, but rather concerning one who ate of notar (remnant) from five sacrifices in one spell of unawareness what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or is he liable to one for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Akiba replied: if this is a received tradition we accept it; but if it is only a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal. He [Rabbi Joshua] said: rebut it. He replied: It is not so. For if you hold the view with regard to sacrilege, for in this case one who gives food to another is as guilty as the one who eats it himself, and the person who causes others to derive a benefit from them is as guilty as the person who himself made use of them; furthermore, [small quantities are] reckoned together in the case of sacrilege even after the lapse of a long period, can you say it in connection with notar (remnant) where not one of these laws applies.

Rabbi Akiba asked again: If a man slaughtered five sacrifices outside [the Temple] in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable to a separate offering for each act or only to one for them all? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiba did not ask this, but rather concerning one who ate of notar (remnant) from five sacrifices in one spell of unawareness what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or is he liable to one for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Akiba replied: if this is a received tradition we accept it; but if it is only a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal. He [Rabbi Joshua] said: rebut it. He replied: It is not so. For if you hold the view with regard to sacrilege, for in this case one who gives food to another is as guilty as the one who eats it himself, and the person who causes others to derive a benefit from them is as guilty as the person who himself made use of them; furthermore, [small quantities are] reckoned together in the case of sacrilege even after the lapse of a long period, can you say it in connection with notar (remnant) where not one of these laws applies.

Rabbi Akiba said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: if one performed many acts of forbidden work of the same category on different Shabbats but in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or to a separate one for each of them? He replied to me: he is liable to a separate one for each of them. And this can be derived by through a kal vehomer. If with regard to relations with a menstruant, for which there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, one is still liable for each act, how much more must one be liable to separate offerings in the case of Shabbat, for which there are many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning! I said to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of the menstruant, since in that case there are two warnings: the man is warned with regard to the menstruant woman, and the menstruant woman is warned with a man; but can you hold the same in the case of the Shabbat where there is only one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [menstruant] minors can prove the point, where there is but one warning, and yet one is liable for each act. I responded to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of minors because although no prohibition now applies, it will apply later; but can you hold the same view with regard to Shabbat where neither now nor later [is there more than one warning]? He said to me: Let the law concerning intercourse with an animal prove my point. I replied to him: the law concerning intercourse with an animal is indeed comparable to [that concerning] Shabbat.

Rabbi Akiva declares one liable to an asham talui for sacrilege; But the sages declare him exempt. Rabbi Akiba admits that he does not bring his restitution money until he becomes aware [of his trespass], when he must bring with it a certain asham. Rabbi Tarfon: Why should he bring two ashams? Rather, let him set aside the principal with an added fifth, and bring an asham the value of two sela's and stipulate: “If I did commit sacrilege, here is my restitution and this my asham; and if the sacrilege was doubtful, let the money be a freewill gift and the [offering an] asham talui;” since the same type of sacrifice he brings for a case where he doesn’t know, he brings for one where he does know.

Rabbi Akiba: Your words seem plausible in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege; but if it was a case of doubtful sacrilege of a hundred manehs, would it not be more advantageous for him to bring an asham for two sela's rather than restore out of doubt the sum of a hundred manehs? Rabbi Akiba agrees with Rabbi Tarfon in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege. If a woman brought a bird hatat for a case of a doubtful miscarriage, and prior to the pinching of its neck she learned that the birth was a certainty, she can offer it as a certain hatat, for that which she offers in the case of certainty is of the same kind as that which she offers in the case of doubt.

Rabbi Akiba: Your words seem plausible in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege; but if it was a case of doubtful sacrilege of a hundred manehs, would it not be more advantageous for him to bring an asham for two sela's rather than restore out of doubt the sum of a hundred manehs? Rabbi Akiba agrees with Rabbi Tarfon in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege. If a woman brought a bird hatat for a case of a doubtful miscarriage, and prior to the pinching of its neck she learned that the birth was a certainty, she can offer it as a certain hatat, for that which she offers in the case of certainty is of the same kind as that which she offers in the case of doubt.

[If there was] a piece of hullin meat and a piece of sacred meat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba declares him liable for an asham talui. If he then ate the second [piece], he is liable to a certain asham. If he ate one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one asham. Rabbi Yose said: Two people cannot bring one asham.

[If there was] a piece of hullin meat and a piece of sacred meat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba declares him liable for an asham talui. If he then ate the second [piece], he is liable to a certain asham. If he ate one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one asham. Rabbi Yose said: Two people cannot bring one asham.

If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one? Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.

If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one? Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.

All that live in the sea are clean, except the sea-dog because it seeks refuge on dry land, the words of Rabbi Akiba. If one made vessels from what grows in the sea and joined to them anything that grows on land, even if only a thread or a cord, if it is susceptible to uncleanness, they are unclean.

[A piece of cloth] less than three [handbreadths] square that was adapted for the purpose of stopping up a hole in a bath house, of emptying a cooking-pot or of wiping with it the mill stones, whether it was or was not kept in readiness for any such use, is susceptible to uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: whether it was or was not kept in readiness it is pure. Rabbi Akiba ruled: if it was kept in readiness it is susceptible, and if it was not kept in readiness it is pure.

A bright spot the size of a split bean, and it spreads to the extent of half a split bean, while of the original spot there disappeared as much as half a split bean: Rabbi Akiba says: it must be inspected as a new one, But the sages say: it is clean.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

Ahab's well and the pool in Banias cave are fit. Water that has changed its color and the change arose from itself, remains fit. A water channel that comes from a distance is fit, as long as it is watched so that no one cuts it off. Rabbi Judah says: the presumption is that it is permitted. If some clay or earth fell into a well, one must wait until it becomes clear, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: he need not wait.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.

MISHNAH: Two tame bulls which injured one another; one pays half for the excess damage. If both are notorious, one pays in full for the excess damage. One tame and one notorious; the notorious over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the notorious pays half for the excess damage. Similarly, two people who injured one another pay in full for the excess damage. A human and a notorious animal, or a notorious animal and a human, one pays in full for the excess damage. A human and a tame animal; the human over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the human pays half for the excess damage. Rebbi Akiba says, also a tame animal which injured a human pays the excess damage in full. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; he takes the bull. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; Rebbi Meïr said, about this case it was said: “They shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds.” Rebbi Jehudah said to him, you upheld “they shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds,” but you did not uphold “and also the cadaver they shall split.” What is this? That is a bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is worth 50 zuz, in which case each owner takes half of the living bull and half from the cadaver.

There is a teaching : R. 'Akiba said : For three things I admire the Medes : When they cut up meat, they only do so upon the table ; when they kiss, they only kiss on the hand ; and when they hold a consultation, they only do so in a field.

There are some who apply the statement of Rab Aha b. Hannina to the following : There is a teaching : R. Simeon b. Johai said in the name of R. 'Akiba : There are times when a man reads the Shema' twice in a day, once before sunrise and once after sunrise, and thereby fulfils his obligation both for the day and night.

Rab Aha b. R. Hannina said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi : The Halakah is in accord with R. Simeon who spoke in the name of R. 'Akiba. R. Zera said : This is so, only one does not say, "Cause us, O Lord our God, to lie down."

Rab Joseph said : There is no contradiction ; the statement of the Mishnah being the view of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, the other the view of R. 'Akiba. For there is a teaching : "And they shall eat the flesh in that night" (Exod. xii. 8). R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said, "Here it is stated, 'in that night' and the same phrase occurs in 'For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night' (ibid. 5:12) ; as in the latter passage it means 'until midnight', so also in the former it means 'until midnight'."

R. 'Akiba said to him, "But has it not already been stated, 'Ye shall eat it in haste' (ibid. v. 11) — i.e. until the time of hastening?" R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah asked, "If so, why is there a teaching to state 'in that night'?" R. 'Akiba answered, "One might otherwise have thought that the Paschal offering could be eaten like the other holy offerings during the day ; therefore there is a teaching to state 'in that night,' meaning

R. 'Akiba said to him, "But has it not already been stated, 'Ye shall eat it in haste' (ibid. v. 11) — i.e. until the time of hastening?" R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah asked, "If so, why is there a teaching to state 'in that night'?" R. 'Akiba answered, "One might otherwise have thought that the Paschal offering could be eaten like the other holy offerings during the day ; therefore there is a teaching to state 'in that night,' meaning

According to R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah who uses the argument of Gezerah Shawah, it is quite right that it was necessary to state "in that night"; but how does R. 'Akiba explain the word "that"?

And R. 'Akiba? If one deduced it from this passage, I might have said, Which "morning"? The second morning !

What is the point of disagreement? The time of "hastening." R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah holds that it refers to the haste of the Egyptians; but R. 'Akiba holds that

There is a teaching : R. Meir says : [The morning Shema' is to be read] from the time one can distinguish between a wolf and a dog. R. 'Akiba says : Between an ass and a wild ass. Others say : When he can see an associate of his at a distance of four cubits and recognise him.

Our Rabbis have taught : "And these words shall be" means that one must not recite [the sentences of the Shema'] out of order. "These words... upon thine heart" — one might suppose that the whole Parashah requires Kawwanah; therefore there is a teaching to state, "These words... [shall be upon thine heart]," that is to say, up to this point Kawwanah is required, but from this point onward it is not necessary. These are the words of R. Eliezer. [[fol. 13 b.]] R. 'Akiba said to him :

Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan: The Halakah is in accord with R. 'Akiba.

R. Jose says : The Ba'al Keri may study what is familiar to him, but he must not expound the Mishnah. R. Jonathan b. Joseph says : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. R. Nathan b. Abishalom says : Also the Talmud may he expound, but he must not pronounce the name of God when it occurs. R. Johanan the Sandal-maker, disciple of R.'Akiba, said in the name of R.'Akiba : Such a man should not enter upon study at all. Another version of this statement is : Such a man should not enter a House of Study at all. R. Judah says : He may study the Halakot of Derek Eres.

R. Jose says : The Ba'al Keri may study what is familiar to him, but he must not expound the Mishnah. R. Jonathan b. Joseph says : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. R. Nathan b. Abishalom says : Also the Talmud may he expound, but he must not pronounce the name of God when it occurs. R. Johanan the Sandal-maker, disciple of R.'Akiba, said in the name of R.'Akiba : Such a man should not enter upon study at all. Another version of this statement is : Such a man should not enter a House of Study at all. R. Judah says : He may study the Halakot of Derek Eres.

Our Rabbis have taught : A Ba'al Keri upon whom nine Kabs of water have been poured becomes clean. Nahum, the man of Gam Zu, whispered this to R. 'Akiba, who whispered it to Ben 'Azzai. Ben 'Azzai went out and taught it to his disciples publicly. Two Palestinian Amoraim, R. Jose b. Abin and R. Jose b. Zebida, differ on this matter ; one stating that Ben 'Azzai taught it, the other that he whispered it.

Rab Nahman ordered a pitcher of the capacity of nine Kabs. When Rab Dimai came [from Palestine], he said : R. 'Akiba and R. Judah the locksmith declared : The teaching [that nine Kabs may be poured over a Ba'al Keri to cleanse him] is meant to apply only to a delicate person who experienced the emission involuntarily ; but for a delicate person who caused it to happen, forty Saot are necessary.

There is a further teaching : When one is about to enter a regular privy, he divests himself of the Tefillin at a [minimum] distance of four cubits, leaves them on the window-sill which is near the public road, and then enters. When he comes out, he walks a distance of four cubits and relays them. These are the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel declare that he may hold them in his hand and enter. R. 'Akiba says : He holds them in his garment and enters.

Whom shall we appoint in his stead ? Shall we appoint R. Joshua ? [No ;] he is a party in the incident. Shall we appoint R. 'Akiba ? [No ;] perhaps Rabban Gamaliel will plague him because of his lack of ancestral merit.

They said, "Who will go and tell the Rabbis [that we are reconciled]? " A fuller said to them, "I will go," R. Joshua sent [the following message] to the House of Study, "Let him who has been accustomed to wear the mantle [of honour] still wear it ; and shall he who has not been accustomed to wear the mantle say to him who has been accustomed to wear it, 'Take off thy mantle and I shall put it on'?" R. 'Akiba said to the Rabbis, "Bolt the doors, so that the slaves of Rabban Gamaliel may not enter and injure the Rabbis."

R. Joshua said, "It is better that I should rise and go myself to him." He went and knocked at his door, and said to him, "Let the sprinkler who is the son of a sprinkler sprinkle; for shall one who is not a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to a sprinkler who is the son of a sprinkler, 'Thy water is cave water and thy ashes the ashes of a stove'?" R. 'Akiba said to him, "R. Joshua, thou hast become reconciled ! Have we not done this only out of regard for thine honour? To-morrow thou and I will go early to the door of [Rabban Gamaliel's] house."

MISHNAH Rabban Gamaliel says: Every day one should pray the eighteen [benedictions]. R. Joshua says : The abstract of the eighteen [benedictions]. R. 'Akiba says: If his prayer is fluent in his mouth, he should pray the eighteen ; but if not, an abstract of the eighteen.

Rabbah b. Samuel objected : Let him, then, say the fourth benediction separately ! Have we not the Mishnaic teaching : R. 'Akiba says : One may say the fourth benediction by itself ; R. Eliezer says : [One can say the "Division"] in the benediction of thanksgiving?

There is a teaching: R. Judah said: It was the practice of R. 'Akiba, when he said the Tefillah with the Congregation, to shorten [the time in which he said it] and step back, so as to avoid troubling the Congregation; but when he said the Tefillah alone, a man might leave him in one corner and find him in another corner. And why so? Because of his bowings and genuflections.

For there is a teaching : "Then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed" — this teaches that if she had been barren she now conceives; these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. 'Akiba said to him : In that case, all barren women will go and lay themselves under suspicion, and she who has not done wrong [after receiving the waters] will conceive ! Nay, it teaches, that if she usually gave birth in pain, she now gives birth with ease ; that she will have tall children instead of short, fair instead of dark, two instead of one.

MISHNAH We refer to rain in the benediction of "the Revival of the Dead" and the request [for rain] in the benediction of "the Years," and the "Division" in "Thou favourest man with knowledge." R. 'Akiba says : One should say the last mentioned as a fourth benediction by itself. R. Eliezer says : [It is to be included] in the "Thanksgiving."

R. 'Akiba says : One should say the last-mentioned as a fourth benediction by itself.

Behold R. 'Akiba differs!"

"Do we, then, act in accordance with R. 'Akiba the whole year, that we should now agree and act in accord with his view? Why do we not act in agreement with R. 'Akiba the whole year? Because eighteen benedictions were instituted, not nineteen; and so here also, seven benedictions were instituted, not eight."

"Do we, then, act in accordance with R. 'Akiba the whole year, that we should now agree and act in accord with his view? Why do we not act in agreement with R. 'Akiba the whole year? Because eighteen benedictions were instituted, not nineteen; and so here also, seven benedictions were instituted, not eight."

GEMARA Whence is this derived ? For our Rabbis have taught: "The fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise [hillulim] unto the Lord" (Lev. xix. 24) — this teaches that they require a benediction before and after partaking of them. Hence said R. 'Akiba : A man is forbidden to taste anything without previously saying a benediction. But is the phrase "holy for giving praise" intended to teach that ?

He speaks according to the view of R. 'Akiba ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Eliezer says : In the case of the caper-bush, we give tithe of the young shoots and the berries and buds ; R. 'Akiba says : We only give tithe of the berries because they are fruit.

He speaks according to the view of R. 'Akiba ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Eliezer says : In the case of the caper-bush, we give tithe of the young shoots and the berries and buds ; R. 'Akiba says : We only give tithe of the berries because they are fruit.

Then let him say that the Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba! If he had said that the Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba, I might have thought that [that is so] even in the Land of Israel ; therefore he informs us : Whoever takes a lenient view within the Land, the Halakah is in accord with him outside the Land, but not within.