akiva

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.

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.

They release vows by reference to the sabbaths and festivals. The earlier ruling was that for these days the vow is cancelled, but for others it is binding, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: a vow which is partially released is entirely released.

If a woman waits for a yavam, whether for one or for two [yevamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: he can annul [her vows]. Rabbi Joshua says: [only if she waits] for one, but not for two. Rabbi Akiva says: neither for one nor for two. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a man can annul the vows of a woman whom he himself acquired, isn’t it logical that can he annul those of a woman bequeathed to him by Heaven! Rabbi Akiva said to him: No! If you speak of a woman whom he himself acquires, that is because others have no rights in her; will you say [the same] of a woman given to him by Heaven, in whom others too have rights! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Akiva, your words apply to two yevamim; but what will you answer if there is only one yavam? He (Rabbi Akiva) said to him (Rabbi Joshua): the yevamah is not as completely acquired to the yavam as a betrothed girl is to her [betrothed] husband.

If a woman waits for a yavam, whether for one or for two [yevamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: he can annul [her vows]. Rabbi Joshua says: [only if she waits] for one, but not for two. Rabbi Akiva says: neither for one nor for two. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a man can annul the vows of a woman whom he himself acquired, isn’t it logical that can he annul those of a woman bequeathed to him by Heaven! Rabbi Akiva said to him: No! If you speak of a woman whom he himself acquires, that is because others have no rights in her; will you say [the same] of a woman given to him by Heaven, in whom others too have rights! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Akiva, your words apply to two yevamim; but what will you answer if there is only one yavam? He (Rabbi Akiva) said to him (Rabbi Joshua): the yevamah is not as completely acquired to the yavam as a betrothed girl is to her [betrothed] husband.

If a woman waits for a yavam, whether for one or for two [yevamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: he can annul [her vows]. Rabbi Joshua says: [only if she waits] for one, but not for two. Rabbi Akiva says: neither for one nor for two. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a man can annul the vows of a woman whom he himself acquired, isn’t it logical that can he annul those of a woman bequeathed to him by Heaven! Rabbi Akiva said to him: No! If you speak of a woman whom he himself acquires, that is because others have no rights in her; will you say [the same] of a woman given to him by Heaven, in whom others too have rights! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Akiva, your words apply to two yevamim; but what will you answer if there is only one yavam? He (Rabbi Akiva) said to him (Rabbi Joshua): the yevamah is not as completely acquired to the yavam as a betrothed girl is to her [betrothed] husband.

If a woman waits for a yavam, whether for one or for two [yevamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: he can annul [her vows]. Rabbi Joshua says: [only if she waits] for one, but not for two. Rabbi Akiva says: neither for one nor for two. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a man can annul the vows of a woman whom he himself acquired, isn’t it logical that can he annul those of a woman bequeathed to him by Heaven! Rabbi Akiva said to him: No! If you speak of a woman whom he himself acquires, that is because others have no rights in her; will you say [the same] of a woman given to him by Heaven, in whom others too have rights! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Akiva, your words apply to two yevamim; but what will you answer if there is only one yavam? He (Rabbi Akiva) said to him (Rabbi Joshua): the yevamah is not as completely acquired to the yavam as a betrothed girl is to her [betrothed] husband.

[If she vows,] “Konam that which I do for my father,” [or] “your father,” [or] “my brother,” [or] “your brother,” [the husband] cannot annul it. [“Konam] “that which I do for you,” he need not annul it. Rabbi Akiva says: he should annul it, lest she make more than is fitting for him. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: he should annul it, lest he divorce her and she thereby be forbidden to him.

Shaving on account of defilement: How was it done? He would sprinkle [with purification water] on the third and seventh days, shave on the seventh day and bring his sacrifices on the eighth day. If he shaved on the eighth day, he would bring his sacrifices on that same day, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: what difference is there between this one and a person with scale disease? He said to him: the purification of this one depends on his days, whereas the purification of one with scale disease depends on his shaving, and he cannot bring a sacrifice unless the sun has set upon him [after his purification].

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.”

On that day, Rabbi Akiva expounded, “And every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, everything in it shall be unclean” (Leviticus 11:33), it does not state tame (is unclean) but yitma’, (shall make unclean). This teaches that a loaf which is unclean in the second degree, makes unclean [food and liquids which come into contact with it] in the third degree. Rabbi Joshua said: who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, since you used to say that in the future another generation will pronounce clean a loaf which is unclean in the third degree on the grounds that there is no text in the Torah according to which it is unclean! Has not Rabbi Akiva your student brought a text from the Torah according to which it is unclean, as it is said “everything in it shall be unclean.”

On that day, Rabbi Akiva expounded, “And every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, everything in it shall be unclean” (Leviticus 11:33), it does not state tame (is unclean) but yitma’, (shall make unclean). This teaches that a loaf which is unclean in the second degree, makes unclean [food and liquids which come into contact with it] in the third degree. Rabbi Joshua said: who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, since you used to say that in the future another generation will pronounce clean a loaf which is unclean in the third degree on the grounds that there is no text in the Torah according to which it is unclean! Has not Rabbi Akiva your student brought a text from the Torah according to which it is unclean, as it is said “everything in it shall be unclean.”

On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded, “You shall measure off two thousand cubits outside the town on the east side” (Numbers 35:5). But another verse states, “from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits around” (vs. It is impossible to say that it was a thousand cubits since it has been already stated two thousand cubits; and it is impossible to say that it was two thousand cubits since it has been already stated a thousand cubits! How then is this so? A thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for the Sabbath-limits. Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: a thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for fields and vineyards.

On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded, “Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song unto the Lord and said saying” (Exodus 15:. For the Torah did not need to say “saying”, so why did the Torah say “saying”? It teaches that the Israelites responded to every sentence after Moses, in the manner of reading Hallel; that is why it says “saying”. Rabbi Nehemiah says: as is the reading the Shema and not Hallel.

“Then the officers shall go on addressing the troops and say, ‘Is there anyone afraid and disheartened’” (Deuteronomy 20:8). Rabbi Akiva says: “afraid and disheartened” is to be understood literally, that he cannot stand in the battle lines and see a drawn sword. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “afraid and disheartened” this is the one who is afraid because of the transgressions he has committed; therefore the Torah connected all these [other categories of those who return home] with him that he may return home on their account. Rabbi Yose says: a high priest who married a widow, an ordinary priest who married a divorcee or halutzah, an Israelite who married a mamzeret or netinah, and the daughter of an Israelite who married a mamzer or a natin behold this one is “afraid and disheartened.”

If the head was found in one place and the body in another place, they bring the head to the body, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: [they bring] the body to the head.

From what part [of the body] do they measure? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the navel. Rabbi Akiva says: from the nose. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: from the place where he was made a slain person, from the neck.

A “bald” get anyone can complete its signatures, the words of Ben Nannas. But Rabbi Akiva says that it may be completed only by relatives who are qualified to testify elsewhere. What is a “bald” get? One which has more folds than signatures.

Bet Shammai says: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Bet Hillel says [that he may divorce her] even if she has merely burnt his dish, since it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Rabbi Akiva says, [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, “it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes”.

If two oxen which were accounted harmless hurt one another, the owner pays half-damages for that one which suffered the greater hurt. If both were attested dangers full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt. If one was accounted harmless and the other was an attested danger, that which was an attested danger as against that which was accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while that which was accounted harmless, as against that which was an attested danger, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered. So, too, if two men hurt one another, full damages are payable for that one which suffered the greater hurt. If a man and an ox which was accounted harmless hurt one another, the man as against the ox accounted harmless must pay full damages for the greater hurt that the other has suffered, while the ox accounted harmless, as against the man, pays only half damages for the greater hurt that the other suffered. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even if an ox accounted harmless hurt a man, full damages must be paid for that one which suffered the greater hurt.

If a person sends forth fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor he is not liable by the laws of man, but he is liable by the laws of Heaven. If he sent it forth in the hands of a person of sound senses, the one of sound senses is liable. If one brought the fire, and then another brought the wood, he that brought the wood is liable. If one brought the wood and then another brought fire, he that brought the fire is liable. If another came and fanned the flames, the one who fanned the flame is liable. If the wind fanned the flame, they are all exempt. If a man sent forth fire, and it consumed wood or stones or dust, he is liable, for it says: “When a fire breaks out and spreads to thorns so that the stacked corn is consumed, or the standing corn, or the field, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.” If it passed over a fence four cubits high, or over a public way, or over a river, he is exempt. If a man kindled fire within his own domain, how far may it spread [and he will still be liable]? Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: “It is looked at as if it was in the middle of a kor’s space.” [ Rabbi Eliezer says: “Sixteen cubits [in every direction] like a public highway.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Fifty cubits.” Rabbi Shimon says: “[It is said] ‘He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution’, all is in accordance with the nature of the fire.”

If a man boxed the ear of his fellow, he must pay him a sela (four. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: “A maneh (one hundred.” If he slapped him he must pay 200 zuz. If with the back of his hand, he must pay him 400 zuz. If he tore at his ear, plucked out his hair, spat at him and his spit touched him, or pulled his cloak from off him, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, he must pay 400 zuz. This is the general rule: all is in accordance with the person’s honor. Rabbi Akiva said: “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”. And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?” He answered, “You have said nothing.” If a man injures himself, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But others who injure him are liable. If a man cuts down his own saplings, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.

If a man boxed the ear of his fellow, he must pay him a sela (four. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: “A maneh (one hundred.” If he slapped him he must pay 200 zuz. If with the back of his hand, he must pay him 400 zuz. If he tore at his ear, plucked out his hair, spat at him and his spit touched him, or pulled his cloak from off him, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, he must pay 400 zuz. This is the general rule: all is in accordance with the person’s honor. Rabbi Akiva said: “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”. And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?” He answered, “You have said nothing.” If a man injures himself, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But others who injure him are liable. If a man cuts down his own saplings, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.

If a man boxed the ear of his fellow, he must pay him a sela (four. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: “A maneh (one hundred.” If he slapped him he must pay 200 zuz. If with the back of his hand, he must pay him 400 zuz. If he tore at his ear, plucked out his hair, spat at him and his spit touched him, or pulled his cloak from off him, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, he must pay 400 zuz. This is the general rule: all is in accordance with the person’s honor. Rabbi Akiva said: “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”. And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?” He answered, “You have said nothing.” If a man injures himself, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But others who injure him are liable. If a man cuts down his own saplings, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.

If he (the claimant) named what was lost but could not describe its distinctive marks, he should not give it back to him. And it should not be give to a [known] deceiver, even if he describes its distinctive marks, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “Until your fellow claims it”, [which is to say] until you inquire about your fellow, if he is a deceiver or not. Whatsoever works and eats, let it work and eat [while in the finder’s care]. But whatsoever does not work and eat should be sold, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “And you shall return it to him”, See how you can return it to him. What shall be with the money [from the sale]? Rabbi Tarfon says: “He may use it, therefore if it is lost he is responsible for it.” Rabbi Akiva says: “He may not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible for it.”

If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug.

They do not divide a courtyard until there is four cubits for this [partner] and four cubits for this [partner]. Nor [do they divide up] a field until it has nine kavs for this [partner] and nine kavs for this [partner]. Rabbi Judah says: “Until it has nine half-kavs for this [partner] and nine half-kavs for this [partner]. Nor [do they divide up] a garden until it has a half-kav for this [partner] and a half-kav for this [partner]. Rabbi Akiva says: “A quarter-kav.” Nor [do they divide up] an eating hall, a watch-tower, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, or an olive-press until there is sufficient for this [partner] and for this [partner]. This is the general rule: whatever can be divided and still be called by the same name, they divide; otherwise they do not divide. When is this so? When they do not both wish [to divide the property]. However, if both wish they can divide it even if it is smaller. And with regards to the Sacred Books, they may not be divided even if both are willing.

Animal carcasses, graves and tanneries must be distanced fifty cubits from a town. A tannery may be set up only to the east of a town. Rabbi Akiva says: “It may be set up on any side save the west, and it must be distanced fifty cubits [from the town].

The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, dovecotes, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields and slaves and anything which continually produces a yield is three complete years. The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for a field irrigated by rain water is three years and they need not be completed. Rabbi Yishmael says: “Three months during the first year, and three months during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes eighteen months.” Rabbi Akiva says: “One month during the first year and one month during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes fourteen months.” Rabbi Yishmael said: “When does this apply? With regards to a sown field, but with tree plantation, if he brought in his produce (grapes), collected the olives and gathered in his fig harvest, this counts as three years.”

Nor [has he sold] the cistern or the cellar, even though he had written in the deed of sale, “the depth and height”. And he [the seller] must buy himself a path [from the new owner to reach the cellar or cistern], according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: “He need not buy himself a path.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said to him, “Excepting these [the cistern or cellar]” that he need not buy himself a path. If he sold them [the cellar or cistern] to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He need not buy himself a path.” But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a path.”

Nor [has he sold] the cistern or the cellar, even though he had written in the deed of sale, “the depth and height”. And he [the seller] must buy himself a path [from the new owner to reach the cellar or cistern], according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: “He need not buy himself a path.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said to him, “Excepting these [the cistern or cellar]” that he need not buy himself a path. If he sold them [the cellar or cistern] to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He need not buy himself a path.” But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a path.”

Nor [has he sold] the cistern or the cellar, even though he had written in the deed of sale, “the depth and height”. And he [the seller] must buy himself a path [from the new owner to reach the cellar or cistern], according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: “He need not buy himself a path.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said to him, “Excepting these [the cistern or cellar]” that he need not buy himself a path. If he sold them [the cellar or cistern] to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He need not buy himself a path.” But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a path.”

But [one who sold a field] has not sold the stones that are not necessary to it or the canes in a vineyard that are not necessary to it or the produce that is already picked from the ground. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it” all of these are sold also. But in neither case has he sold any partition of reeds that covers a quarter-kav’s space of ground, or the watchman’s hut if it was not fastened down with mortar, or grafted carob trees or cropped sycamores, or any cistern or winepress or dovecote, whether they are lying waste or in use. And [the seller] must purchase [from the buyer] a way thereto, according to Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: “He need not.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said, “Excepting these”, he need not buy himself a way thereto. If he had sold them (the cistern, winepress or dovecote) to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He [that bought them] need not buy himself a way thereto. But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a way thereto.” When is this so? With regards to he that sells his field. But if he gives it as a gift, he gives everything that is in it. If brothers who divided [an inheritance] came into possession of a field, they come into possession of everything that is in it. If a man secured title by possession of the property of a convert, and secured title by possession of the [convert’s] field, he secures title to everything that is in it. If a man dedicated a field [to the Temple] he has dedicated everything in it. Rabbi Shimon says: “If a man dedicated a field, he has dedicated only the grafted carob trees and cropped sycamores.”

But [one who sold a field] has not sold the stones that are not necessary to it or the canes in a vineyard that are not necessary to it or the produce that is already picked from the ground. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it” all of these are sold also. But in neither case has he sold any partition of reeds that covers a quarter-kav’s space of ground, or the watchman’s hut if it was not fastened down with mortar, or grafted carob trees or cropped sycamores, or any cistern or winepress or dovecote, whether they are lying waste or in use. And [the seller] must purchase [from the buyer] a way thereto, according to Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: “He need not.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said, “Excepting these”, he need not buy himself a way thereto. If he had sold them (the cistern, winepress or dovecote) to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He [that bought them] need not buy himself a way thereto. But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a way thereto.” When is this so? With regards to he that sells his field. But if he gives it as a gift, he gives everything that is in it. If brothers who divided [an inheritance] came into possession of a field, they come into possession of everything that is in it. If a man secured title by possession of the property of a convert, and secured title by possession of the [convert’s] field, he secures title to everything that is in it. If a man dedicated a field [to the Temple] he has dedicated everything in it. Rabbi Shimon says: “If a man dedicated a field, he has dedicated only the grafted carob trees and cropped sycamores.”

But [one who sold a field] has not sold the stones that are not necessary to it or the canes in a vineyard that are not necessary to it or the produce that is already picked from the ground. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it” all of these are sold also. But in neither case has he sold any partition of reeds that covers a quarter-kav’s space of ground, or the watchman’s hut if it was not fastened down with mortar, or grafted carob trees or cropped sycamores, or any cistern or winepress or dovecote, whether they are lying waste or in use. And [the seller] must purchase [from the buyer] a way thereto, according to Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: “He need not.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said, “Excepting these”, he need not buy himself a way thereto. If he had sold them (the cistern, winepress or dovecote) to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He [that bought them] need not buy himself a way thereto. But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a way thereto.” When is this so? With regards to he that sells his field. But if he gives it as a gift, he gives everything that is in it. If brothers who divided [an inheritance] came into possession of a field, they come into possession of everything that is in it. If a man secured title by possession of the property of a convert, and secured title by possession of the [convert’s] field, he secures title to everything that is in it. If a man dedicated a field [to the Temple] he has dedicated everything in it. Rabbi Shimon says: “If a man dedicated a field, he has dedicated only the grafted carob trees and cropped sycamores.”

If a man sold his fellow a place to build him a house, so, too, if a man contracted with his fellow to build him a bridal-house for his son, or a widow’s house for his daughter, he must build it four cubits by six cubits (80 inches x 120 inches), according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: “This is a cattle-shed”. He who wants to build a cattle-shed, should build it four cubits by six. A small house six by eight (120 x. A large house eight by ten (160 x. An eating hall ten by ten (200 x. The height should be [the sum] of half its length and half its breadth. Proof of the matter is the sanctuary. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Should all [houses] be according to the building of the Sanctuary?”

[If he said, “I will sell you] a kor’s space of soil as measured by a rope”, and he gave him less, the buyer may reduce the price; and if he gave him more, the buyer must give it back. But if he said, “Whether less or more”, even if he gave the buyer a quarter-kab’s space less in every seah’s space, or a quarter kab’s space more in every seah’s space, it becomes his; if [the error] was more than this, a reckoning must be made. What does he (the buyer) give him back? Its value in money; but if the seller wants, he gives him back the land. And why did they say that he could give back its value in money? To strengthen the power of the seller, for if, in a field [containing a kor’s space] there would still have remained to him nine kab’s space, or, in a garden, a half-kab’s space, or according to Rabbi Akiva a quarter-kab’s space, the buyer must give back to him land. And not only must he give back the quarter-kab’s space, but all of the surplus.

If the house fell down on a man and his mother, they (the Schools of Shammai and Hillel) agree that the they split the property. Rabbi Akiva said: “I agree here, that the property remains in its former status.” Ben Azzai said to him: “We already are distressed over those things upon which there is disagreement, and you are coming to bring disagreement on the points in which they agree.”

Cases concerning offenses punishable by death [are decided] by twenty three. A beast that has sexual relations with a woman or with a man is [judged] by twenty three, as it says, “You shall execute the woman and the beast” (Lev. 20:16) and it says, “You shall execute the beast”. The ox that is stoned [is judged] by twenty three, as it says, “The ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29), as is the death of the owner, so too is the death of the ox. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther, or serpent [that have killed a human being] their death is [adjudicated] by twenty three. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Anyone who kills them before they come to court merits.” But Rabbi Akiva says: “Their death must be [adjudicated] by twenty three.

These are the relatives [that are not qualified to be witnesses or judges]: A suitor’s father, brother, father’s brother, mother’s brother, sister’s husband, father’s sister’s husband, mother’s sister’s husband, mother’s husband, father-in-law, or wife’s sister’s husband them and their sons and their sons-in-law; also the suitor’s step-son only [but not the stepsons’ sons]. Rabbi Yose said, “Such was the mishnah of Rabbi Akiva, but the first mishnah taught: ‘a suitor’s uncle, or his uncle’s son, and all that are qualified to be his heir. Moreover all that were kinsmen at the time [are disqualified]; but kinsmen that have ceased to be kinsmen become qualified.” Rabbi Judah says: “If a man’s daughter died and left children, her husband still counts as a kinsman.”

A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua’s name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.”

If one steals the sacred vessel called a “kasvah” (Numbers 4:7), or cursed by the name of an idol, or has sexual relations with an Aramean (non-Jewish) woman, he is punished by zealots. If a priest performed the temple service while impure, his fellow priests do not bring him to the court, but rather the young priests take him out into the courtyard and split his skull with clubs. A layman who performed the service in the Temple: Rabbi Akiva says: “He is strangled.” But the Sages say: “[His death is] at the hands of heaven.”

All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”

“And you shall gather all its spoil into the public square” (Deut. 13:17): if it had no public square, one is made for it; if the public square was outside of [the city], it is brought within it. “And you shall burn with fire the city, and all its spoil as a whole burnt offering for the Lord your God” (ibid.): “And all its spoil”, but not the spoil of heaven. From here they said, the holy objects in the city must be redeemed and the heave offerings (terumoth) allowed to rot; and the second tithe and the sacred writings hidden. “A whole burnt offering for the Lord your God”: Rabbi Shimon said: “The holy Blessed One declared, ‘If you execute judgment upon the seduced city, I will ascribe merit to you as though you had sacrificed to me a whole offering.’” “And it shall remain an everlasting ruin, never to be rebuilt”: it may not be made even into gardens and orchards, according to the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: “Never to be rebuilt”: it may not be built as it was, but it may be made into gardens and orchards. “Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand, in order that the Lord may turn His blazing anger and show you compassion” (Deut. 13:18): as long as the wicked exist in the world, there is blazing anger in the world; when the wicked perish from the world, blazing anger disappears from the world.

If one fled after having been convicted at a court and again comes up before the same court, the [first] judgment is not set aside. Wherever two witnesses stand up and declare, “We testify that so and so was tried and convicted at a certain court and that so and so were the witnesses” the accused is executed. [Trials before] a sanhedrin are customary both in the land [of Israel] and outside it. A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous. Rabbi Eliezer b. Azariah Says: once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: “Had we been members of a sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel remarked: “They would also multiply murderers in Israel.”

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.

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.

It is the same [whether he swears of] things concerning himself, or of things concerning others, or of things which have substance, or of things which have no substance. How so? [If] he said, “I swear that I shall give to so-and-so”, or “I shall not give”; “I have given”, or “I have not given”; “I shall sleep”, or “I shall not sleep”; “I have slept”, or “I have not slept”; “I shall throw a pebble into the sea”, or “I shall not throw”; “I have thrown”, or “I have not thrown”; [he is liable.] Rabbi Ishmael says: “He is liable only for [an oath with regards to] the future, for it says, “To do bad or to do good” (Leviticus 5:4). Rabbi Akiva said to him: “If so, we would know only such cases where doing evil and doing good are applicable; but how do we know such cases where doing evil and doing good are not applicable? He said to him: “From the amplification of the verse.” He said to him: “If the verse amplifies for that, it amplifies for this also.”

Vetches of terumah: Beth Shammai says, “They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.” And Beth Hillel says: “They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.” Shammai says: “They must be eaten dry.” Rabbi Akiva says: “All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.”

One who exchanges a sela from second tithe in Jerusalem: Beth Shammai says: “Copper coin for the whole sela.” And Beth Hillel says: “Silver for one shekel and copper coin for one shekel.” The disputants before the Sages say: “Silver for three denars and copper coin for one denar.” Rabbi Akiva says: “Silver for three denars and for the fourth silver, copper coin.” Rabbi Tarfon says: “Four aspers in silver.” Shammai says: “He must leave it in the shop and eat on the credit thereof.”

They said three things before Rabbi Akiva, two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and one in the name of Rabbi Joshua. Two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A woman may go out [on the Sabbath adorned] with a “golden-city”; And they that fly pigeons are unfit to bear evidence. And one in the name of Rabbi Joshua: If there was a creeping thing in the mouth of a weasel when it walked over loaves of terumah, and it is doubtful whether it touched them or whether it did not touch them, that about which there is doubt remains pure.

Rabbi Joshua ben. Bathyra testified concerning the blood of carcasses that it was pure. Rabbi Shimon ben Bathyra testified concerning the ashes of purification, that if a defiled person had touched part of them he had defiled the whole of them. Rabbi Akiva added in regard to the fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals, that if a tevul yom had touched part of them he had made the whole of them unfit.

Rabbi Akiva testified in the name of Nehemiah, a man of Beth Deli, that a woman is allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Rabbi Joshua testified concerning bones found in the wood-shed that the Sages said: one may gather them, bone by bone, and they are all clean.

Rabbi Akiva said: Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness; Tradition is a fence to the Torah; Tithes a fence to wealth, Vows a fence to abstinence; A fence to wisdom is silence.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things. And the ruler is similarly [exempt]; these are the words of Rabbi Yose Hagalili. Rabbi Akiva says; the ruler is liable in the case of all these except that of hearing of the voice [of adjuration], because the king may neither judge nor be judged, neither may he testify nor may others testify against him.

If [blood] which is to be sprinkled inside [the Sanctuary] was mixed with [blood] that is to be sprinkled outside, it must be poured out into the duct. If [the priest] sprinkled outside and then sprinkled inside, it is valid. [If he sprinkled] inside and then went back and sprinkled outside: Rabbi Akiva declares it unfit, But the sages declare it fit. For Rabbi Akiva says: all blood which entered the Sanctuary to make atonement is unfit; But the sages say: the hatat alone [is unfit]. R. Eliezer said: the asham too, for it says, “As is the hatat, so is the asham” (Leviticus 7:7).

If [blood] which is to be sprinkled inside [the Sanctuary] was mixed with [blood] that is to be sprinkled outside, it must be poured out into the duct. If [the priest] sprinkled outside and then sprinkled inside, it is valid. [If he sprinkled] inside and then went back and sprinkled outside: Rabbi Akiva declares it unfit, But the sages declare it fit. For Rabbi Akiva says: all blood which entered the Sanctuary to make atonement is unfit; But the sages say: the hatat alone [is unfit]. R. Eliezer said: the asham too, for it says, “As is the hatat, so is the asham” (Leviticus 7:7).

Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.

All sacrifices which became disqualified, before they were flayed, their hides do not belong to the priests. After they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. Rabbi Hanina vice-chief of the priests said: Never in my life have I seen a hide go out to the place of burning. Rabbi Akiva said: we learn from his words that if one flays a firstling and it is found to be terefah, the priests have a right to its hide. But the sages say: “I have never seen” is not proof: rather, it [the hide] must go forth to the place of burning.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

All the measures in the Temple were heaped except [that used for] the high priest's [minhah] which included in itself the heaped amount. The overflow of the liquid-measures was holy, but the overflow of the dry-measures was not holy. Rabbi Akiva says: the liquid-measuring vessels were holy, therefore their overflow was holy too; the dry-measuring vessels were not holy, therefore their overflow was not holy. Rabbi Yose says: it is not for that reason, but because liquids are stirred up and dry-stuffs are not.

The high priest’s griddle cakes: their kneading, their shaping, and their baking were performed within [the Temple Court], And they override the Shabbat. The grinding [of the grain for it] and the sifting did not override the Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva said a general rule: any work that can be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat, but that which cannot be done on the eve of Shabbat does override Shabbat.

One may offer wine but not oil, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Tarfon says: one may also offer oil. Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find that wine is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering, so oil which is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say so of wine it is because it is offered by itself even when offered as an obligation, can you say the same of oil which is not offered by itself when offered as an obligation? Two [men] may not jointly offer one tenth [of flour for a minhah]; but they may jointly offer an olah or a shelamim, and bird sacrifices even a single bird.

One may offer wine but not oil, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Tarfon says: one may also offer oil. Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find that wine is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering, so oil which is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say so of wine it is because it is offered by itself even when offered as an obligation, can you say the same of oil which is not offered by itself when offered as an obligation? Two [men] may not jointly offer one tenth [of flour for a minhah]; but they may jointly offer an olah or a shelamim, and bird sacrifices even a single bird.

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.

It is forbidden to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of a clean animal or to derive any benefit from it. But it is permitted to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of an unclean animal or the meat of an unclean animal in the milk of a clean animal and to derive benefit from it. Rabbi Akiva says: wild animals and fowls are not included in the prohibition of the Torah, for it is written three times, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk;” to exclude wild animals, fowl, and unclean animals. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, it is said, “You shall not eat any nevelah” and [in the same verse] it says, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21) anything that is prohibited because of nevelah it is forbidden to cook in milk. Fowl which is prohibited because of nevelah, it might also be forbidden to cook in milk, Scripture says, “In its mother’s milk;” this excludes fowl which has no mother's milk.

A hide which had an olive’s bulk of [unclean] flesh clinging to it, one who touches a shred hanging from it, or a hair that was opposite to it, he becomes unclean. If there were two pieces of flesh attached to it, each the size of half an olive, they convey uncleanness by carrying but not by contact, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: neither by contact nor by carrying. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if there were two pieces of flesh, each the size of half of an olive, that he stuck on a twig and he waved them, he becomes unclean. Why then does Rabbi Akiva declare him clean in the [case where they cling to the] hide? Because the hide renders them negligible.

A hide which had an olive’s bulk of [unclean] flesh clinging to it, one who touches a shred hanging from it, or a hair that was opposite to it, he becomes unclean. If there were two pieces of flesh attached to it, each the size of half an olive, they convey uncleanness by carrying but not by contact, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: neither by contact nor by carrying. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if there were two pieces of flesh, each the size of half of an olive, that he stuck on a twig and he waved them, he becomes unclean. Why then does Rabbi Akiva declare him clean in the [case where they cling to the] hide? Because the hide renders them negligible.

A hide which had an olive’s bulk of [unclean] flesh clinging to it, one who touches a shred hanging from it, or a hair that was opposite to it, he becomes unclean. If there were two pieces of flesh attached to it, each the size of half an olive, they convey uncleanness by carrying but not by contact, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: neither by contact nor by carrying. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if there were two pieces of flesh, each the size of half of an olive, that he stuck on a twig and he waved them, he becomes unclean. Why then does Rabbi Akiva declare him clean in the [case where they cling to the] hide? Because the hide renders them negligible.

If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

If two ewes which had never previously given birth bore two males, both belong to the priest. [If they gave birth] to a male and a female, the male belongs to the priest. [If they gave birth] to two males and a female, one remains with him, and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. [If they gave birth to] two females and a male or two males and two females, the priest receives nothing in such circumstances.

If two ewes which had never previously given birth bore two males, both belong to the priest. [If they gave birth] to a male and a female, the male belongs to the priest. [If they gave birth] to two males and a female, one remains with him, and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. [If they gave birth to] two females and a male or two males and two females, the priest receives nothing in such circumstances.

If one [of the ewes] had given birth and the other had never previously given birth and they bore two males, one remains with him and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. For Rabbi Yose says: wherever the priest receives [an animal] in its place, he is exempt from the priestly gifts. Rabbi Meir however makes him liable. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

If one [of the ewes] had given birth and the other had never previously given birth and they bore two males, one remains with him and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. For Rabbi Yose says: wherever the priest receives [an animal] in its place, he is exempt from the priestly gifts. Rabbi Meir however makes him liable. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

With regard to [an animal] that was born through a cesarean section and the first born which came after it: Rabbi Tarfon says: both go out to pasture until blemished and are eaten with their blemishes by the owners. But Rabbi Akiva says: neither of them is a first born; the first because it did not open its mother’s womb, and the second, because another preceded it.

If one buys an animal from a non-Jew and it is not known whether it had given birth or had not given birth: Rabbi Ishmael says: that born of a goat in its first year certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first-born]. That born of a ewe two years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. That born of a cow or a donkey three years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. Rabbi Akiva to him: if an animal were exempted [from the law of the first born] only with the birth of [actual] offspring, it would be as you say. But they said: the sign of offspring in small cattle is a discharge [from the womb]. In large cattle, the after-birth; in a woman, the signs are the fetus and the after-birth. This is the general rule: Whenever it is known that it had given birth, the priest receives nothing. Whenever it had never given birth, it belongs to the priest. If there is a doubt, it shall be eaten blemished by the owners. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a large domestic animal has discharged a clot of blood, it [the clot] shall be buried, and it [the mother] is exempted from the law of the first born.

If one who is not an expert sees a first born and it was slaughtered by his instructions, in such a case it shall be buried and he shall make reparation from his own pocket. If a [non-expert] judge gave a judgment and declared innocent a person who was really liable or made liable a person who was really innocent, declared unclean a thing which was clean or declared clean a thing which was really unclean, his decision stands but he has to make reparation from his own pocket. If the judge was an expert [sanctioned by the] court, he is exempt from making reparation. It happened once that a cow's womb was removed and Rabbi Tarfon gave it [the cow] to the dogs to eat. The matter came before the sages at Yavneh and they permitted the animal. Todos the physician said: no cow or pig leaves Alexandria of Egypt before its womb is removed in order that it may not breed. Rabbi Tarfon said: “There goes your donkey, Tarfon.” Rabbi Akiva said to him: you are exempt, for you are an expert and whoever is an expert sanctioned by the court is exempt from reparation.

If [a first born] has no testicles or if it only has one testicle, [it is a blemish]. Rabbi Ishmael says: if it has two pouches, then it has two testicles, but if it only has one pouch, then it only has one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says: [the animal] is placed on its buttocks and he squeezes [the pouch]. If a testicle is [in there, inside the pouch] it will eventually come out. It happened that one squeezed it and [the testicle] did not come out, but when it was slaughtered [the testicle] was found attached to the loins, and Rabbi Akiva permitted [the animal] while Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited it.

If [a first born] has no testicles or if it only has one testicle, [it is a blemish]. Rabbi Ishmael says: if it has two pouches, then it has two testicles, but if it only has one pouch, then it only has one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says: [the animal] is placed on its buttocks and he squeezes [the pouch]. If a testicle is [in there, inside the pouch] it will eventually come out. It happened that one squeezed it and [the testicle] did not come out, but when it was slaughtered [the testicle] was found attached to the loins, and Rabbi Akiva permitted [the animal] while Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited it.

If the upper lip overlaps the lower or the lower lip overlaps the upper, behold this is a blemish. One whose teeth have fallen out is unfit [for the priesthood] for appearance sake. If his breasts hang down like those of a woman, or his belly is swollen, or his navel sticks out, or if he is epileptic, even once every few days, or he is subject to melancholy, a me'ushkan and a ba'al gever [all these are unfit for the priesthood]. If he has no testicles, or only one testicle, this is the “meroah ashekh” mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Ishmael says: anyone whose testicles were crushed. Rabbi Akiva says: anyone who has wind in his testicles. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one who has a black complexion.

If one woman had given birth before and the other had never before given birth, the two women belonging to two husbands, and they gave birth to two males, the one whose wife had never before given birth gives five selas to the priest. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing. If the son dies within thirty days although he gave the priest [the five selas], he must return them. If he dies after thirty days, although he has not yet given the five selas, he (the father) must give them. If he dies on the thirtieth day, it is as if he died on the previous day. But Rabbi Akiva says: if he gave [the five selas] he cannot reclaim them, but if he had not yet given, he need not give. If the father dies within thirty days, [the infant] is under the presumption of not having been redeemed until proof is brought that he has been redeemed. If the father dies after thirty days, the infant is under the presumption of having been redeemed until he [the son] is told that he was not redeemed. If both he and his son need to be redeemed, the father takes precedence over his son. Rabbi Judah says: his son comes first for the command to redeem him was upon his father, and the command of his son is upon him.

There are three periods [lit. threshing floors] for the tithe of cattle: in the peras of Pesah, in the peras of Atzeret (Shavuot) and in the peras of the Feast [of Sukkot], the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. And why did they say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei? Because it is a Yom Tov and you cannot tithe on a Yom Tov. Consequently they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul. Rabbi Meir says: the first of Elul is the New Year for the tithe of cattle. Ben Azzai says: those born in Elul are tithed by themselves.

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

To which type of female slave [does this refer]? To one who is half a slave and half a free person, as it is written: “And she has been redeemed and not redeemed” (Leviticus 19:20), the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: to a full female slave. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: all other forbidden sexual relations are stated explicitly, and of the remainder there is only one who can be half a slave and half a free person.

Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua at the meat-market of Emmaus, where they went to buy meat for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamaliel's son: What [is the law concerning] a man who had intercourse with his sister, his father's sister and his mother's sister? Is he liable for one sacrifice for all of them, or to one [separate sacrifice] for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing [about this], but we have heard that if one had intercourse with five menstruants in one spell of unawareness, he is liable to a sacrifice for each [act], and it seems to us that the case [you asked about] may be derived by an a fortiori conclusion (kal vehomer).

Rabbi Akiva further asked: If a limb hangs loose from the body of a living beast, what is the law? They replied: We have heard nothing about this, but we have heard about a limb hanging loose from the body of a man, that it is clean. And thus those that were afflicted with boils used to do in Jerusalem. He would go on the eve of Pesah to the doctor, and he would cut the limb until only contact of a hairbreadth was left; he then stuck it on a thorn and then tore himself away from it. In this manner both that man and the physician could make their pesah offering. And it seems to us that your case may be derived from this by a kal vehomer.

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.

If there was a piece of unconsecrated forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: also to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to two hatats and one certain asham. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: each of them brings [in addition] an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring one asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot bring one asham.

If there was a piece of unconsecrated forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: also to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to two hatats and one certain asham. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: each of them brings [in addition] an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring one asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot bring one asham.

If the innards of sacrifices of that have a lower degree of holiness were taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one cannot become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiva says: they are subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.

If one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has suffered deterioration. And anything that does not deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he made use of it. How is this so? If [a woman] puts a necklace round her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it [to the value of a perutah]. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or if one chopped [wood] with an axe, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if [those objects] have suffered deterioration. If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If when dead, he is liable as soon as he made use of it.

If a perutah belonging to the Temple fell into his bag or if he said, “One perutah in this bag shall be dedicated,” as soon as he spends the first perutah he is guilty of sacrilege, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: not until he has spent all the money that was in the bag. Rabbi Akiva agrees if he says, “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated,” he is permitted to keep on spending [and is liable only] when he has spent all that was in the bag.

If a perutah belonging to the Temple fell into his bag or if he said, “One perutah in this bag shall be dedicated,” as soon as he spends the first perutah he is guilty of sacrilege, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: not until he has spent all the money that was in the bag. Rabbi Akiva agrees if he says, “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated,” he is permitted to keep on spending [and is liable only] when he has spent all that was in the bag.

As regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of the larger but broken vessels] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold oil sufficient for the anointing of a little finger of a child [if their former capacity] was that of a log. If [their former capacity] was from one log to a se'ah [their present capacity] must be a quarter of a log. If it was from a se'ah to two se'ah it must be half a log. If from two se'ah to three se'ah or as much as five se'ah it must be a log, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: I do not prescribe any size for the unbroken vessels, rather: as regards the smallest earthen vessels, and the bottoms and sides [of larger but broken ones] that can stand unsupported: The prescribed size is a capacity to hold enough oil to anoint the little finger of a child. [This size is prescribed for pots] that are not bigger than the small cooking-pots. For small cooking-pots and for those between these and the jars from Lydda the prescribed capacity is a quarter of a log. For those which have a size between that of Lydda jars and Bethlehem jars the capacity must be that of half a log. For those between Bethlehem jars and large stone jars the capacity must be that of a log. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai says: [the prescribed capacity for the fragments] of large stone jars is two logs, and that for the bottoms of broken Galilean flasks and small jars is any whatsoever, but the fragments of their sides are not susceptible to impurity

A lantern that has a receptacle for oil is susceptible to impurity, but one that has none is not susceptible. A potter's mould on which one begins to shape the clay is not susceptible to impurity, but that on which one finishes it is susceptible. A funnel for home use is not susceptible to impurity, but that of merchants is susceptible because it also serves as a measure, the words of Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Akiva says: because he puts it on its side to let the buyer smell it.

A jar which which was pierced and the hole stopped up with more pitch than was necessary: That which touches the needed portion is unclean, But that which touches the unneeded portion is clean. Pitch which dripped upon a jar, that which touches it is clean. A wooden or earthen funnel which was stopped up with pitch: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean when it is of wood and clean when it is of earthenware. Rabbi Yose says that both are clean.

A metal spindle-knob: Rabbi Akiva says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is not susceptible. If it was only plated [with metal] it is clean. A spindle, a distaff, a rod, a double flute and a pipe are susceptible to impurity if they are of metal, but if they are only plated [with metal] they are clean. If a double flute has a receptacle for the wings it is susceptible to impurity in either case.

A nail which he adapted to be able to open or to shut a lock is susceptible to impurity. But one used for guarding is clean. A nail which he adapted to open a jar: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean unless he forges it. A money-changer's nail is clean, But Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity. There are three things which Rabbi Zadok holds to be susceptible to impurity and the sages hold clean: The nail of a money-changer, The chest of a grist-dealer And the nail of a sundial. Rabbi Zadok rules that these are susceptible to impurity and the sages rule that they are clean.