akiva

Rabban Gamaliel says: every day a man should pray the eighteen [blessings]. Rabbi Joshua says: an abstract of the eighteen. Rabbi Akiva says: if he knows it fluently he prays the eighteen, and if not an abstract of the eighteen.

They mention [God’s] power to bring rain in the blessing for the resurrection of the dead. And they ask for rain in the blessing for [fruitful] years. And havdalah in “Who grant knowledge.” Rabbi Akiva says: he says it as a fourth blessing by itself. Rabbi Eliezer says: in the thanksgiving blessing.

If one has eaten grapes, figs or pomegranates he blesses after them three blessings, the words of Rabban Gamaliel. The sages say: one blessing which includes three. Rabbi Akiva says: even if one ate only boiled vegetables and that is his meal, he says after it the three blessings. If one drinks water to quench his thirst, he says “By Whose word all things exist.” Rabbi Tarfon says: “Who creates many living things and their requirements.”

He may always give peah and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack. One who gives [to the poor] as ownerless [produce] and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack. He may feed cattle, wild animals and birds and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack. He may take from the threshing floor and use it as seed and be exempt from giving tithes until he makes a stack, the words of Rabbi Akiva. A priest or Levite who purchase [grain of] a threshing floor, the tithes are theirs unless [the owner] has already made a stack. One who dedicated [his crop] and redeems it [afterwards] is obligated to give tithes until the Temple treasurer has made a stack.

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.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a piece of ground [large enough to plant] one fourth of a kav is liable for peah. Rabbi Joshua says: it must [be large enough] to grow two seahs. Rabbi Tarfon says: it must be six by six handbreadths. R. Judah ben Batera says: [it must be large enough] for a sickle to cut at least two handfuls and the halakhah is according to his words. Rabbi Akiva says: any size of land is liable for peah and for first-fruits, and [is sufficient] for the writing of the prozbul, and also to acquire through it movable property by money, by deed, or by a claim based on undisturbed possession.

There are three times a day [the poor] make a search [in the field for peah]: morning, noon, and sunset. Rabban Gamaliel says: these [times] were only set lest they reduce them. Rabbi Akiva says: these were set lest they add to them. [The men] of Bet Namer used to have the poor harvest [the peah] with the aid of a rope, and they left peah at the end of each furrow.

What are gleanings? That which falls down at the time of harvesting. If while he was harvesting, he harvested a handful, or plucked a fistful, and then a thorn pricked him, and what he had in his hand fell to the ground, it still belongs to the owner. [That which drops from] inside the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the poor, but [that which falls from] the back of the hand or the sickle [belongs] to the owner. [That which falls from] the top of the hand or sickle: Rabbi Ishmael says: to the poor; But Rabbi Akiva says: to the owner.

A vineyard which consists entirely of defective clusters: Rabbi Eliezer says: it belongs to the owner. Rabbi Akiva says: to the poor. Rabbi Eliezer: “When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, do not take the defective clusters” (Deuteronomy 24:21). If there is no grape harvesting, how can there be “defective clusters”? Rabbi Akiva said to him: “And from your vineyard do not take the defective clusters” (Leviticus 19:10) even if it consists entirely of defective clusters. If that is so, why is it said: “When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, do not take the defective clusters”? [This teaches that] the poor have no right to claim the defective clusters before the harvest.

A vineyard which consists entirely of defective clusters: Rabbi Eliezer says: it belongs to the owner. Rabbi Akiva says: to the poor. Rabbi Eliezer: “When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, do not take the defective clusters” (Deuteronomy 24:21). If there is no grape harvesting, how can there be “defective clusters”? Rabbi Akiva said to him: “And from your vineyard do not take the defective clusters” (Leviticus 19:10) even if it consists entirely of defective clusters. If that is so, why is it said: “When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, do not take the defective clusters”? [This teaches that] the poor have no right to claim the defective clusters before the harvest.

They may not give to the poor from the threshing-floor less than a half-kav of wheat or a kav of barley. R. Meir says: [only] half a kav [of barley]. [They must give] a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: half a maneh. [They must give] half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: a quarter. [They must give] a quarter [log] of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: an eighth. As for other kinds of produce: Abba Shaul says, [they must give enough] so that he can sell it and buy food enough for two meals.

They may not give to the poor from the threshing-floor less than a half-kav of wheat or a kav of barley. R. Meir says: [only] half a kav [of barley]. [They must give] a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: half a maneh. [They must give] half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: a quarter. [They must give] a quarter [log] of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: an eighth. As for other kinds of produce: Abba Shaul says, [they must give enough] so that he can sell it and buy food enough for two meals.

They may not give to the poor from the threshing-floor less than a half-kav of wheat or a kav of barley. R. Meir says: [only] half a kav [of barley]. [They must give] a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: half a maneh. [They must give] half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: a quarter. [They must give] a quarter [log] of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: an eighth. As for other kinds of produce: Abba Shaul says, [they must give enough] so that he can sell it and buy food enough for two meals.

Turnips and the cabbage turnip, cabbage and cauliflower, beet and rumex do not constitute kilayim one with the other. Rabbi Akiva added: garlic and small wild garlic, onion and small wild onion, lupine and wild lupine do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

If the point of an angle of a vegetable field overlaps into a field of another vegetable, it is permitted because it looks like the end of his field. His field was sown with a certain vegetable and he wants to plant in it a row of another vegetable: Rabbi Ishmael says: [he may do so] as long as a furrow runs through from one end of the field to the other. Rabbi Akiva says: [as long as] it is six handbreadths long and fully as wide. Rabbi Judah says: [as long as] the width is the full width of a footstep.

His field was sown with onions, and he wishes to plant in it rows of gourds: Rabbi Ishmael says: he pulls up two rows [of onions] and plants [in the cleared space] one row [of gourds], then he leaves onions over a space of two rows, pulls up two rows [of onions] and plants [in the cleared space] one row [of gourds, and so on]. Rabbi Akiva says: he pulls up two rows [of onions], plants [in the cleared space] two rows [of gourds], then he leaves onions over a space of two rows, pulls up two rows [of onions], and plants two rows [of gourds; and so on]. The sages say: if between one row [of gourds] and the next there are not twelve cubits, one may not allow that which is sown in the intervening space to remain.

What is an aris (an espalier) [which is regarded as a vineyard]? One who has planted a [single] row consisting of five vines beside a fence ten handbreadths high, or beside a trench ten handbreadths deep and four wide, they leave a space of four cubits in which to work it. Bet Shammai says: they measure the four cubits from the body of the vine to the field; But Bet Hillel says: from the fence to the field. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: all who say so are mistaken! Rather, if there are four cubits from the body of the vines to the fence, they leave a space in which to work it and they may sow the rest. And how much is the space in which work to work a vine? Six handbreadths in every direction. Rabbi Akiva says: three.

Rabbi Yose said: It happened that a man sowed [seed in] his vineyard in the sabbatical year, and the matter came before Rabbi Akiva, who said: a person does not prohibit [as kilayim] that which is not his own.

One who makes a fence between his own property and the public domain, he is allowed to dig down to rock level. What should he do with the soil? He piles it up in the public domain, and then restores it, the words of Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Akiva says: just as no damage may be done to a public domain, so one may not repair it. Then what should he do with the soil? He heaps it up in his own field in the manner of those who bring out dung [for manure]. Similarly when one digs a cistern, a trench or a cave.

In Syria, one may perform work on produce that has been detached, but not on produced attached [to the soil]. They may thresh, winnow, and tread [the grapes], or make [the grain] into sheaves, but they may not harvest [the crops], nor cut the grapes, nor harvest the olives. Rabbi Akiva said this principle: the kind of work that is permitted in Eretz Israel may also be done in Syria.

[Two] partners who took terumah, the one after the other: Rabbi Akiva says: the terumah of them both is terumah. But the sages say: the terumah of the first is terumah. Rabbi Yose says: if the first gave the prescribed amount, the terumah of the second is not terumah, but if the first did not give the prescribed amount, the terumah of the second is terumah.

Rabbi Yose said: A case once came before Rabbi Akiva concerning fifty bundles of vegetables into which a bundle of the same size had fallen, half of which was terumah. And I said in front of him, that it can be brought up, not because terumah can be brought up in fifty-one, but because there were one hundred and two halves there.

Rabbi Eliezer says: they may make repayment from one kind for another, provided that it is from a superior kind for an inferior kind. Rabbi Akiva says: they may make repayment only from the same kind. Hence if a man ate cucumbers grown a year before the seventh year, he must wait for those grown after the termination of the seventh year and repay with them. The same source which causes Rabbi Eliezer to be lenient causes Rabbi Akiva to be stringent, for it says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (hakodesh)” (Leviticus 22:14), [implying,] whatever is liable to become “kodesh,” the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Akiva says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (kodesh),” [implying] the same kind of holy thing which he ate.

Rabbi Eliezer says: they may make repayment from one kind for another, provided that it is from a superior kind for an inferior kind. Rabbi Akiva says: they may make repayment only from the same kind. Hence if a man ate cucumbers grown a year before the seventh year, he must wait for those grown after the termination of the seventh year and repay with them. The same source which causes Rabbi Eliezer to be lenient causes Rabbi Akiva to be stringent, for it says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (hakodesh)” (Leviticus 22:14), [implying,] whatever is liable to become “kodesh,” the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Akiva says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (kodesh),” [implying] the same kind of holy thing which he ate.

Rabbi Eliezer says: they may make repayment from one kind for another, provided that it is from a superior kind for an inferior kind. Rabbi Akiva says: they may make repayment only from the same kind. Hence if a man ate cucumbers grown a year before the seventh year, he must wait for those grown after the termination of the seventh year and repay with them. The same source which causes Rabbi Eliezer to be lenient causes Rabbi Akiva to be stringent, for it says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (hakodesh)” (Leviticus 22:14), [implying,] whatever is liable to become “kodesh,” the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Akiva says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (kodesh),” [implying] the same kind of holy thing which he ate.

And it is subject to gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah. Poor Israelites and poor priests may glean them, but the poor Israelites must sell theirs to priests for the price of terumah and the money becomes theirs. Rabbi Tarfon says: only poor priests may glean them, lest [the others] forget and put it into their mouths. Rabbi Akiva said to him: if that be so, then only those who are clean should be allowed to glean.

Which courtyard is it which makes [the produce] liable to tithe? Rabbi Ishmael says: the Tyrian yard for the vessels are protected therein. Rabbi Akiva says: any courtyard which one person may open and another may shut is exempt. Rabbi Nehemiah says: any courtyard in which a man is not ashamed to eat is liable. Rabbi Yose says: any courtyard into which a person may enter and no one says to him, “what are you looking for” is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: if there are two courtyards one within the other, the inner one makes liable and the outer one is exempt.

A vine which was planted in a courtyard: one may take a whole cluster [and eat it without tithing]. Similarly with a pomegranate, or a melon, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: he can pick single berries from the cluster, or split the pomegranate into slices, or cut slices of melon [and eat without tithing]. Coriander which was sown in a courtyard: one may pluck leaf by leaf and eat [without tithing], but if he ate them together he is liable [for tithes]. Savory and hyssop, and thyme which are in the courtyard, if they are kept watch over, they are liable for tithe.

Bet Shammai says: one may not turn his selas into gold dinars. But Bet Hillel permits it. Rabbi Akiva said: For Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua I turned silver into gold dinars.

One who exchanges a sela of second tithe in Jerusalem: Bet Shammai says: he may exchange the whole sela for copper coins. Bet Hillel says: a shekel of silver and a shekel’s worth of copper coins [can be exchanged for the sela]. Those discussing before the sages say: silver for three dinars and copper coins for one denar. Rabbi Akiva says: silver for three denars and copper coins for a fourth [of the fourth denar]. Rabbi Tarfon says: four aspers in silver. Shammai says: he must leave it in a shop and eat as much as it is worth.

Rabbi Judah said: in early times they used to send to householders in the provinces [saying:] “Hasten to set right your produce before the time of removal arrives,” until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that all produce which has not reached the time of tithing is exempt from the removal.

One whose produce was far away from him, he must call it by name. Once it happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the elders were traveling by ship, and Rabban Gamaliel said: “The tithe which I shall measure out in the future is given to Joshua, and the place which it is in is leased to him. The other tithe which I shall measure out in the future is given to Akiva ben Joseph that he may hold it for the poor, and the place which it is in is leased to him.” Rabbi Joshua said: “The tithe [taken from terumah] which I shall measure out is given to Elazar ben Azariah, and the place which it is in is leased to him,” and they each received rent one from another.

Produce [grown] outside the land [of Israel] that came into the land is subject to Hallah. [If it] went out from here to there: Rabbi Eliezer makes it liable, But Rabbi Akiva makes it exempt.

A woman may sit and separate hallah while she is naked, since she can cover herself but a man may not. If one is not able to make one's dough in cleanness he should make it [in separate] kavs, rather than make it in uncleanness. But Rabbi Akiva says: let him make it in uncleanness rather than make it [in separate] kavs, just as he calls the clean, so too he calls the unclean; this one he calls hallah with the Name, and the other he also calls hallah with the Name, but [separate] kavs have no portion [devoted] to the Name.

A convert who converted and had dough: if it was made before he became a convert, he is exempt [from hallah]. After he converted, he is liable. And if there is doubt, he is liable, but [a non-priest who has unwittingly eaten of such hallah] is not liable for the additional one-fifth. Rabbi Akiva said: it all depends on the [time of the] formation of the light crust in the oven.

A kav of [dough made from] new grain and a kav of [dough from] old grain which are stuck together: Rabbi Ishmael says: let him take [hallah] from the middle; But the sages prohibit. One who has taken hallah from [dough made out of] one kav: Rabbi Akiva says: it is hallah; But the sages say: it is not hallah.

Two [separate] kavs [of dough], this one had its hallah removed on its own, and this one had its hallah removed on its own, and then he went back and made of them one dough: Rabbi Akiva exempts; But the sages make it liable. It turns out that the stringency of his [first] ruling leads to the leniency of his other ruling.

These may be given to any priest: Devoted things (haramim); Firstlings; The redemption of the first born; The [lamb substituted as] ransom for the firstling of a donkey; The shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw; The first of the fleece; Oil [fit only] for burning; Consecrated food [which must be eaten] within the Temple; And bikkurim. Rabbi Judah prohibits bikkurim. Vetches of terumah: Rabbi Akiva permits, But the sages prohibit.

Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas says: they would decorate the bikkurim [with produce] other than the seven species. But Rabbi Akiva says: they may decorate only with produce of the seven kinds.

Whatever comes from a tree they may not light [the Shabbat light] except for flax. And whatever comes from a tree cannot be defiled with tent-uncleanness except linen. A wick made of cloth which was twisted but not singed: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is unclean, and one may not light with it; Rabbi Akiva says: it is clean and one may light with it.

Red earth, as much as is required for a seal on merchandise bags, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: as much as is required for the seal on letters. Manure, or thin sand, as much as is required for fertilizing a cabbage stalk, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: for fertilizing one leek plant. Thick sand, as much as is required for putting on a full plaster trowel. Reed, as much as is required for making a pen. But if it is thick or crushed, as much as is required for boiling the lightest of eggs beaten up and placed in a stew pot.

Red earth, as much as is required for a seal on merchandise bags, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: as much as is required for the seal on letters. Manure, or thin sand, as much as is required for fertilizing a cabbage stalk, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: for fertilizing one leek plant. Thick sand, as much as is required for putting on a full plaster trowel. Reed, as much as is required for making a pen. But if it is thick or crushed, as much as is required for boiling the lightest of eggs beaten up and placed in a stew pot.

Rabbi Akiva said: From where do we know that an idol defiles by being carried like a menstruant? Because it is said, “You shall cast them [the idols] away as a menstruous woman. Out! You will say to them” (Isaiah 30:22): just as a menstruant defiles by being carried, so does an idol defile by being carried.

If one throws from the private domain into the public domain [or] from the public domain into the private domain, he is liable. From one private domain to another private domain, and the public domain lies between: Rabbi Akiva makes him liable, But the sages exempt him.

One may fold clothing even four or five times, and spread the sheets on the beds on the Shabbat evening for [use on] Shabbat, but not on Shabbat for [use on] the day after Shabbat. Rabbi Yishmael says: one may fold clothing and spread the sheets on the beds on Yom Kippur for [use on] Shabbat, and the fat pieces of the Shabbat offering may be offered on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva says: those of Shabbat may not be offered on Yom Kippur, nor may those of Yom Kippur be offered on Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer says: if one did not bring an instrument [with which to circumcise] on the eve of Shabbat, he must bring it on Shabbat uncovered; but in [times of] danger he hides it on the testimony of witnesses. Rabbi Eliezer said further: one may cut wood to make charcoal to make an iron instrument. Rabbi Akiva stated a general principle: any [manner of] work which could be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not supersede Shabbat; but that which could not be performed on the eve of Shabbat does supersede Shabbat.

The validation of an alley: Bet Shammai says: a side-post and a crossbeam. And Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. R. Eliezer says: two side-posts. In the name of Rabbi Ishmael one student stated in front of Rabbi Akiva: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning an alley that was less than four cubits [in width], that it [may be validated] by either a side-post or a crossbeam. About what did they disagree? In the case of one that was wider than four, and narrower than ten cubits: Bet Shammai says: both a side-post and a crossbeam [are required] and Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. Rabbi Akiva said they disagree about both cases.

The validation of an alley: Bet Shammai says: a side-post and a crossbeam. And Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. R. Eliezer says: two side-posts. In the name of Rabbi Ishmael one student stated in front of Rabbi Akiva: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning an alley that was less than four cubits [in width], that it [may be validated] by either a side-post or a crossbeam. About what did they disagree? In the case of one that was wider than four, and narrower than ten cubits: Bet Shammai says: both a side-post and a crossbeam [are required] and Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. Rabbi Akiva said they disagree about both cases.

Rabbi Judah says: if a public road cuts through them it should be diverted to one side; But the sages say: this is not necessary. Both for a public cistern, a public well as well as a private well, they may make [an enclosure] of posts, but for a private cistern, they must make a partition ten handbreadths high, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Judah ben Baba says: they make [an enclosure] of posts for a public well only while for the others they must make a belt ten handbreadths high.

Rabbi Judah ben Bava further said: a garden or a karpaf whose [area does not exceed] seventy cubits and a fraction by seventy cubits and a fraction, which is surrounded by a fence ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to carry within it, provided there is in it a watchman’s hut or a dwelling place or it is near to a town. Rabbi Judah says: even if it contained only a cistern, a ditch or a cave it is permitted to carry within it. Rabbi Akiva says: even if it contained none of these it is permitted to carry within it, provided its area [does not exceed] seventy cubits and a fraction by seventy cubits and a fraction. Rabbi Eliezer says: if its length exceeded its breadth even by a single cubit it is not permitted to carry within it. Rabbi Yose says: even if its length is twice its breadth it is permitted to carry within it.

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.

The people of a large town may walk through the whole of a small town, but the people of a small town may not walk through the whole of a large town. How is this so? If a man was in a large town and deposited his eruv in a small town or if he stayed in a small town and deposited his eruv in a large town, he may walk through all the town and two thousand cubits beyond it. Rabbi Akiva says: he only has the place of his eruv and another two thousand cubits.

Rabbi Akiva said to them: Do you not agree with me that one who puts his eruv in a cave may walk no further than two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv? They replied: when is this true? Only where no people dwell in it, but where people dwell in it one may walk through the whole of it and two thousand cubits beyond it. Thus [where an eruv is put] within [the cave] the law is more lenient than [where one is put] on top of it. And to the measurer, of whom they spoke, they give him a distance of two thousand cubits even if the end of his measure terminates within a cave.

Two courtyards, this one inside the other: If the [residents] of the inner one prepared an eruv but those of the outer one did not prepare an eruv, the inner one is permitted but the outer one is forbidden. If the [residents] of the outer one prepared an eruv but not those of the inner one, they both are forbidden. If the [residents] of each [courtyard] prepared an eruv for themselves, each is permitted on its own. Rabbi Akiva forbids the outer one because the right to walk in it prohibits it. The sages say that the right of way does not prohibit it.

If a [dead] creeping thing was found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out in his girdle in order not to keep the impurity there any longer than is necessary, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Judah says: [it should be removed] with wooden tongs in order that uncleanness shall not increase. From where must it be removed? From the sanctuary, from the hall, and from between the hall and the altar, the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas. Rabbi Akiva says: from any place where karet is incurred for entering intentionally and a sin-offering for entering in error from there it must be removed, and from any other place they cover it with a large pot. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever the sages have permitted you anything they have only given you what is really yours, since they have only permitted you that which is forbidden as shevut.

Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests says: during all of the days of the priests they never refrained from burning [sacrificial] meat which had been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness with meat which had been defiled by a father of uncleanness, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness. Rabbi Akiva added and said: during [all] the days of the priests they did not refrain from lighting oil which had been rendered unclean by a tevul yom in a lamp which had been made unclean by one who had contracted corpse impurity, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness.

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer said: is it not logical: if slaughtering, which is [usually forbidden] as a labor, overrides Shabbat, shouldn’t these, which are [only forbidden] as mandated rest (shevut), override Shabbat? Rabbi Joshua said to him: let the festival prove this, for they permitted labor [on the festival] and forbade [activities forbidden because of] shevut. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: what is this, Joshua? What proof is a voluntary act in respect of a commandment! Rabbi Akiva answered and said: let sprinkling [purificatory waters] prove it, which is [performed] because it is a commandment and is [forbidden only] as a shevut, yet it does not override Shabbat; so you too, do not wonder at these, that though they are [required] on account of a commandment and are [forbidden only] as shevut, yet they do not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: but in respect of that I am arguing: if slaughtering, which is a labor, overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that sprinkling, which is [only] a shevut, should override Shabbat! Rabbi Akiva said to him: or the opposite: if sprinkling, which is [forbidden] as a shevut, does not override Shabbat, then slaughtering, which is [normally forbidden] on account of labor, is it not logical that it should not override Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva! You are uprooting what is written in the Torah, “at twilight, offer it at its set time” (Numbers 9:3), both on week-days and on Shabbat. He said to him: master, give me an appointed time for these as there is an appointed season for slaughtering! Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: work which could be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughtering, which could not be done on the eve of Shabbat, does override Shabbat.

How is the pesah roasted? They bring a spit of pomegranate wood and thrust it into its mouth [right down] as far as its buttocks, and place its legs and its entrails inside it, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: this is like boiling, rather they are hung outside it.

What is “a far-off journey”? From Modi’im and beyond, and the same distance on all sides [of Jerusalem], the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: from the threshold of the Temple court and beyond. Rabbi Yose said to him: for that reason the heh has a dot on it in order to say, not because it is really far-off, but [even when one is] from the threshold of the Temple court and beyond.

Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that the substitute of a pesah is sacrificed, and that the substitute of a pesah is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain. Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain: The pesah which was found before the slaughtering of the pesah must be left to graze until it becomes unfit, and then it may be sold, and one brings a peace-offering with the money; and the same applies to its substitute. [If found] after the slaughtering of the pesah, it is offered as a wellbeing offering, and the same applies to it substitute.

How far does one recite it? Bet Shammai say: Until “As a joyous mother of children” (Psalms 113:9). But Bet Hillel say: Until “The flinty rock into a fountain of waters” (Psalms 114:8). And he concludes with [a formula of] redemption. Rabbi Tarfon says: “Who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt”, but he did not conclude [with a blessing]. Rabbi Akiva says: “So may the Lord our God and the God of our fathers bring us to other appointed times and festivals which come towards us for peace, rejoicing in the rebuilding of Your city and glad in Your service, and there we will eat of the sacrifices and the pesahim” etc. until “Blessed are You who has redeemed Israel.”

The pesah defiles one’s hands after midnight. Piggul and remnant defile one’s hands. If he recited the blessing for the pesah, he thereby exempts the sacrifice [the hagigah]; [but] if he recited the blessing for the sacrifice [the hagigah], he does not exempt the pesah, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: this does not exempt that nor does that exempt this.

At three periods of the year the appropriation is made [from the shekels] in the chamber: Half a month before Pesah, half a month before Shavuot, and half a month before Sukkot, and these are also the threshing floors [the seasons] for the tithe of beasts, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, and on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. Why did they say, “On the twenty-ninth of Elul and not on the first of Tishre? Because the first of Tishre is a holy day, and it is not permitted to tithe on a festival, therefore they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul.

What did they do with the surplus of the remainder in the chamber? They would buy with it wines, oils and fine flours, and the profit belonged to the Temple, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: one may not make a profit with the property of the Temple, nor with the property of the poor.

What was done with the surplus of the appropriation? [They would buy] plates of gold for covering the interior of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Ishmael says: the surplus [from the sale] of the produce was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Akiva says: the surplus of the appropriation was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the libations was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests says: the surplus of the libations was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Neither of these [two sages] allowed [a profit from the sale of] the produce.

If one dedicated his possessions to the Temple, and there was among them things which was fit for public offerings, they should be given to the craftsmen as their wages; the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: this method is not correct. Rather, they separate from them the wages of the craftsmen, and then they exchange them for the money due to the craftsmen, and then they give them to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they buy them back again out of a new appropriation.

One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there was among them an animal fit for the altar, males or females,Rabbi Eliezer says: males should be sold for the use of burnt-offerings and females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and the proceeds should be lumped together with the rest of the possessions for the repair of the temple. Rabbi Joshua says: the males themselves should be offered as burnt-offerings and the females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and with the proceeds burnt offerings should be brought, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the temple. Rabbi Akiva says: I prefer the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer over the opinion of Rabbi Joshua, for Rabbi Eliezer applied a uniform rule, but Rabbi Joshua differentiated. Rabbi Papias said: I have heard [a tradition in accordance] with both of their opinions: that one who dedicates to the Temple with explicitness, it is according to the words of Rabbi Eliezer, but one who dedicates to the Temple without specifying it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Joshua.

Rabbi Eliezer says: [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled by a principal uncleanness, whether inside or outside [the Temple precincts], must be burned outside [the Temple]. [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled with a derived uncleanness whether inside or outside the Temple, is burned inside the Temple. Rabbi Akiva says: where it was defiled there it is burned.

One who says: I shall sin and repent, sin and repent, they do not afford him the opportunity to repent. [If one says]: I shall sin and Yom HaKippurim will atone for me, Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement. For transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow. This was expounded by Rabbi Elazar b. Azariah: “From all your sins before the Lord you shall be clean” (Leviticus 16:30) for transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow. Rabbi Akiva said: Happy are you, Israel! Who is it before whom you become pure? And who is it that purifies you? Your Father who is in heaven, as it is said: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean” (Ezekiel 36:25). And it further says: “O hope (mikveh) of Israel, O Lord” (Jeremiah 17:13--just as a mikveh purifies the unclean, so too does he Holy One, blessed be He, purify Israel.

Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118:1), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.” One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav.

One may not slaughter [on Yom Tov] an animal which is about to die unless there is time enough on that day to eat from it as much as an olive of roasted flesh. Rabbi Akiva says: even [if there is only time to eat] as much as an olive of raw flesh [taken] from the place of slaughter. If he slaughtered it in the field, he may not bring it in on a pole or a barrow, but he may bring it in piece by piece in his hand.

It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way [to Jerusalem] and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude [from coming to provide testimony] it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future.

Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.

The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]: He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar]. Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them? Rather he says: “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest.

And so too a city, upon which no rain has fallen as it is written, “And I caused it to rain upon one city, and I caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon…” (Amos 4:7) that city fasts and they sound a blast, but those [in the places] around it fast but do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: they sound the alarm but do not fast.

And so too a city which has a plague or [its buildings] collapse that city fasts and they sound a blast, but those [in the places] around it fast but do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: they sound the alarm but do not fast. What constitutes a plague? If in a city that can supply five hundred foot-soldiers and three deaths occurred on three consecutive days, behold this constitutes a plague, less than this is not a plague.

On any day when there is Hallel there was no maamad at Shaharit; [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne'ilah. [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: Thus did Rabbi Joshua learn: [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah; [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne’ilah. Rabbi Akiva retracted and learned like Ben Azzai.

On any day when there is Hallel there was no maamad at Shaharit; [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne'ilah. [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: Thus did Rabbi Joshua learn: [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah; [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne’ilah. Rabbi Akiva retracted and learned like Ben Azzai.

A man who remarried his divorced wife, or married his halutzah, or married the relative of his halutzah must divorce her, and the child is a mamzer; the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: the child is not a mamzer. They agree that where a man married the relative of his divorcee the child is a mamzer.

Who is a mamzer? [The offspring of a union with] any relative with whom cohabitation is forbidden, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Shimon the Yemenite says: [The offspring of any union] for which one is obligated kareth at the hands of heaven; and the halachah is like his words. Rabbi Joshua says: [The offspring of any union] for which one is obligated death at the hands of a court. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll of genealogical records in Jerusalem, and it was written on it, “So-and-so is a mamzer [having been born] from an adulterous woman”, which confirms the view of Rabbi Joshua. If a man’s wife died, he is permitted to marry her sister. If he divorced her and then she died he is permitted to marry her sister. If she was married to another man and died, he is permitted to marry her sister. If a man’s sister-in-law died, he may marry her sister. If he performed for her halitzah and then she died, he is permitted to marry her sister.

Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that a eunuch performs halitzah and that halitzah is performed by others for his wife, and also that a eunuch does not perform halitzah and that no halitzah is performed for his wife, and I am unable to explain this. Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain it: a man-made eunuch performs halitzah and halitzah is also performed for his wife, because there was a time when he was fit [to have children]. A eunuch by nature neither performs halitzah nor is halitzah performed for his wife, since there never was a time when he was fit. Rabbi Elazar said: Not so! Rather a eunuch by nature performs halitzah and halitzah is performed for his wife, because he may be cured. A man-made eunuch neither performs halitzah nor is halitzah performed for his wife, since he cannot be cured. Rabbi Joshua ben Baterra testified concerning Ben Megusat, who was a man-made eunuch living in Jerusalem and they performed yibbum for his wife, thus confirming the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that a eunuch performs halitzah and that halitzah is performed by others for his wife, and also that a eunuch does not perform halitzah and that no halitzah is performed for his wife, and I am unable to explain this. Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain it: a man-made eunuch performs halitzah and halitzah is also performed for his wife, because there was a time when he was fit [to have children]. A eunuch by nature neither performs halitzah nor is halitzah performed for his wife, since there never was a time when he was fit. Rabbi Elazar said: Not so! Rather a eunuch by nature performs halitzah and halitzah is performed for his wife, because he may be cured. A man-made eunuch neither performs halitzah nor is halitzah performed for his wife, since he cannot be cured. Rabbi Joshua ben Baterra testified concerning Ben Megusat, who was a man-made eunuch living in Jerusalem and they performed yibbum for his wife, thus confirming the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

If she took off his shoe and spat, but did not recite [the formula], her halitzah is valid. If she recited [the formula] and spat, but did not draw off the shoe, her halitzah is invalid. If she drew off the shoe and recited [the formula] but did not spit: R. Eliezer says her halitzah is invalid; and R. Akiva says: her halitzah is valid. R. Eliezer said to him: “‘So shall be done’ (Deut. 25:9), anything which is a deed is essential.” R. Akiva said to him: “From there is your proof!: ‘So shall be done to the man”, only that which is to be done to the man [is essential].

If she took off his shoe and spat, but did not recite [the formula], her halitzah is valid. If she recited [the formula] and spat, but did not draw off the shoe, her halitzah is invalid. If she drew off the shoe and recited [the formula] but did not spit: R. Eliezer says her halitzah is invalid; and R. Akiva says: her halitzah is valid. R. Eliezer said to him: “‘So shall be done’ (Deut. 25:9), anything which is a deed is essential.” R. Akiva said to him: “From there is your proof!: ‘So shall be done to the man”, only that which is to be done to the man [is essential].

If she performed halitzah in the presence of two men or in the presence of three men and one of them was discovered to be a relative or in any other way unfit [to act as judge], her halitzah is invalid. R. Shimon and R. Yohanan Ha-Sandelar declare it valid. And it once happened that a man submitted to halitzah between himself and herself in a prison, and when the case came before R. Akiva he declared the halitzah valid.

If a woman and her husband went to a country beyond the sea, and she returned and stated, “my husband is dead”, she may be married again and she also receives her ketubah. However, her rival wife is forbidden to remarry. If [her rival wife] was the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest, she is permitted to eat terumah, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead her away from transgression, unless [it be enacted that] she shall be forbidden both to marry and to eat terumah.

If she stated, “my husband died first and my father-in-law died after him”, she may marry again and she also receives her ketubah, but her mother-in-law is forbidden [to remarry]. If [her mother-in-law] was the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest, she is permitted to eat terumah, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead her away from transgression, unless [it be enacted that] she shall be forbidden both to marry and to eat terumah. If a man betrothed one of five women and he does not know which of them he has betrothed, and each states, “he has betrothed me”, he gives a letter of divorce to every one of them, and he leaves one ketubah [sum] for them and withdraws, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead him away from transgression, unless he gives to each of them both a get and a ketubah. If a man robbed one of five persons and does not know which of them he has robbed, and each one states, “he has robbed me”, he leaves the [amount of] the robbery among them and withdraws, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead them away from transgression, unless one pays [the full amount of the robbery] to every one [of the persons involved].

If she stated, “my husband died first and my father-in-law died after him”, she may marry again and she also receives her ketubah, but her mother-in-law is forbidden [to remarry]. If [her mother-in-law] was the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest, she is permitted to eat terumah, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead her away from transgression, unless [it be enacted that] she shall be forbidden both to marry and to eat terumah. If a man betrothed one of five women and he does not know which of them he has betrothed, and each states, “he has betrothed me”, he gives a letter of divorce to every one of them, and he leaves one ketubah [sum] for them and withdraws, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead him away from transgression, unless he gives to each of them both a get and a ketubah. If a man robbed one of five persons and does not know which of them he has robbed, and each one states, “he has robbed me”, he leaves the [amount of] the robbery among them and withdraws, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead them away from transgression, unless one pays [the full amount of the robbery] to every one [of the persons involved].

If she stated, “my husband died first and my father-in-law died after him”, she may marry again and she also receives her ketubah, but her mother-in-law is forbidden [to remarry]. If [her mother-in-law] was the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest, she is permitted to eat terumah, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead her away from transgression, unless [it be enacted that] she shall be forbidden both to marry and to eat terumah. If a man betrothed one of five women and he does not know which of them he has betrothed, and each states, “he has betrothed me”, he gives a letter of divorce to every one of them, and he leaves one ketubah [sum] for them and withdraws, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead him away from transgression, unless he gives to each of them both a get and a ketubah. If a man robbed one of five persons and does not know which of them he has robbed, and each one states, “he has robbed me”, he leaves the [amount of] the robbery among them and withdraws, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: this is not a way that would lead them away from transgression, unless one pays [the full amount of the robbery] to every one [of the persons involved].

Rabbi Akiva said: When I went down to Nehardea to intercalate the year, I met Nehemiah of Bet D’li who said to me, “I heard that in the land of Israel no one, permits a [married] woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, except Rabbi Judah ben Bava”. “That is so”, I told him. He said to me, “Tell them in my name: ‘You know that this country is in confusion because of marauders. I have received a tradition from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: that they allow a [married] woman to remarry on the evidence of one witness’”. And when I came and recounted the conversation in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel he rejoiced at my words and exclaimed, “We have found a match for Rabbi Judah ben Bava!” As a result of this talk Rabban Gamaliel remembered that some men were once killed at Tel Arza, and that Rabban Gamaliel the Elder had allowed their wives to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and the law was established that they allow a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and on the testimony of one [who states that he has heard] from another witness, from a slave, from a woman or from a female slave. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua say: a woman is not be allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Rabbi Akiva ruled: [a woman is not allowed to marry again] on the evidence of a woman, on that of a slave, on that of a female slave or on that of relatives. They said to him: It once happened that a number of Levites went to Tsoar, the city of palms, and one of them became ill on the way, and they left him in an inn. When they returned they asked the [female] innkeeper, “Where is our friend?” And she replied, “He is dead and I buried him”, and they allowed his wife to remarry. Should not then a priest’s wife [be believed at least as much] as an innkeeper!” He answered them: When she will [give such evidence] as the innkeeper [gave] she will be believed, for the innkeeper had brought out to them [the dead man’s] staff, his bag and the Torah scroll which he had with him.

Rabbi Akiva said: When I went down to Nehardea to intercalate the year, I met Nehemiah of Bet D’li who said to me, “I heard that in the land of Israel no one, permits a [married] woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, except Rabbi Judah ben Bava”. “That is so”, I told him. He said to me, “Tell them in my name: ‘You know that this country is in confusion because of marauders. I have received a tradition from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: that they allow a [married] woman to remarry on the evidence of one witness’”. And when I came and recounted the conversation in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel he rejoiced at my words and exclaimed, “We have found a match for Rabbi Judah ben Bava!” As a result of this talk Rabban Gamaliel remembered that some men were once killed at Tel Arza, and that Rabban Gamaliel the Elder had allowed their wives to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and the law was established that they allow a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and on the testimony of one [who states that he has heard] from another witness, from a slave, from a woman or from a female slave. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua say: a woman is not be allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Rabbi Akiva ruled: [a woman is not allowed to marry again] on the evidence of a woman, on that of a slave, on that of a female slave or on that of relatives. They said to him: It once happened that a number of Levites went to Tsoar, the city of palms, and one of them became ill on the way, and they left him in an inn. When they returned they asked the [female] innkeeper, “Where is our friend?” And she replied, “He is dead and I buried him”, and they allowed his wife to remarry. Should not then a priest’s wife [be believed at least as much] as an innkeeper!” He answered them: When she will [give such evidence] as the innkeeper [gave] she will be believed, for the innkeeper had brought out to them [the dead man’s] staff, his bag and the Torah scroll which he had with him.

A girl who was betrothed and then divorced Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: she does not receive a fine. Rabbi Akiva says: she receives the fine and the fine belongs to her.

A virgin is given twelve months from the [time her intended] husband claimed her, [in which] to prepare herself for marriage. Just as [such a period] is given to the woman, so is it given to the man to prepare himself. A widow is given thirty days. If the time has come and they were not married they are entitled to receive maintenance from the man’s estate and [if he is a priest] they may eat terumah. Rabbi Tarfon says: They give her [all of her food] in terumah. Rabbi Akiva says: One half unconsecrated food and one half terumah.

A man died and left a wife, a creditor, and heirs and he also had a deposit or a loan in the possession of others: Rabbi Tarfon says: It shall be given to the one who is under the greatest disadvantage. Rabbi Akiva says: We do not show mercy in a matter of law. Rather it shall be given to the heirs, for whereas all the others must take an oath the heirs need not take any oath.

If he left produce that was detached from the ground, whoever seizes it first acquires possession. If the wife took possession of more than the amount of her ketubah, or a creditor of more than the value of his debt, the balance: Rabbi Tarfon says: it should be given to the one who is under the greatest disadvantage. Rabbi Akiva says: we do not show mercy in a matter of law. Rather it shall be given to the heirs, for whereas all the others must take an oath the heirs need not take any oath.

They release a vow by reference to a wife’s kethubah. And it once happened that a man vowed not to benefit from his wife and her ketubah amounted to four hundred denarii. He went before Rabbi Akiva, who ordered him to pay her the ketubah [in full]. He said to him, “Rabbi! My father left eight hundred denarii, of which my brother took four hundred and I took four hundred. Isn’t it enough that she should receive two hundred and I two hundred?” Rabbi Akiva replied: even if you have to sell the hair of your head you must pay her her ketubah. He said to him, “Had I known that it is so, I would not have vowed.” And Rabbi Akiva released his vow.