annulled

To what does this apply? Only if one did not confer with the other, but if one allows a member of his household, or his slave or female slave to give terumah for him, this terumah is terumah. If he annulled [this permission]: If he annulled it before the taking of the terumah, the terumah is not terumah; But if he annulled it after the terumah had been taken, the terumah is terumah. Workers have no permission to give terumah, except for those who tread [grapes] for they defile the winepress immediately.

To what does this apply? Only if one did not confer with the other, but if one allows a member of his household, or his slave or female slave to give terumah for him, this terumah is terumah. If he annulled [this permission]: If he annulled it before the taking of the terumah, the terumah is not terumah; But if he annulled it after the terumah had been taken, the terumah is terumah. Workers have no permission to give terumah, except for those who tread [grapes] for they defile the winepress immediately.

To what does this apply? Only if one did not confer with the other, but if one allows a member of his household, or his slave or female slave to give terumah for him, this terumah is terumah. If he annulled [this permission]: If he annulled it before the taking of the terumah, the terumah is not terumah; But if he annulled it after the terumah had been taken, the terumah is terumah. Workers have no permission to give terumah, except for those who tread [grapes] for they defile the winepress immediately.

One who buries his dead three days before a festival, the decrees of shiva are annulled from him; [One he buries his dead] eight days before a festival, the decrees of the shloshim [thirty days] are annulled from him. Because they [the sages] said that Shabbat counts but does not interrupt, while festivals interrupt and do not count.

One who buries his dead three days before a festival, the decrees of shiva are annulled from him; [One he buries his dead] eight days before a festival, the decrees of the shloshim [thirty days] are annulled from him. Because they [the sages] said that Shabbat counts but does not interrupt, while festivals interrupt and do not count.

In the case of a betrothed young woman, her father and her betrothed husband annul her vows. If her father annulled [her vow] but not the husband, or if the husband annulled [it] but not the father, it is not annulled; and it goes without saying if one of them upheld [it].

In the case of a betrothed young woman, her father and her betrothed husband annul her vows. If her father annulled [her vow] but not the husband, or if the husband annulled [it] but not the father, it is not annulled; and it goes without saying if one of them upheld [it].

In the case of a betrothed young woman, her father and her betrothed husband annul her vows. If her father annulled [her vow] but not the husband, or if the husband annulled [it] but not the father, it is not annulled; and it goes without saying if one of them upheld [it].

It is the practice of scholars, before the daughter of one of them departs from him, he says to her, “All the vows which you vowed in my house are annulled.” Likewise the husband, before she enters into his domain would say to her, “All the vows which you vowed before you entered my domain are annulled,” because once she enters into his domain he cannot annul them.

It is the practice of scholars, before the daughter of one of them departs from him, he says to her, “All the vows which you vowed in my house are annulled.” Likewise the husband, before she enters into his domain would say to her, “All the vows which you vowed before you entered my domain are annulled,” because once she enters into his domain he cannot annul them.

If a man says to his wife, “All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place behold, they are upheld,” he has not said anything. [If he said: All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place], behold, they are annulled,”: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are annulled; The Sages say: they are not annulled. Said Rabbi Eliezer: if he can annul vows which have already had the force of a prohibition, surely he can annul those which have not had the force of prohibition! They said to him: behold, it is said, “Her husband may uphold it, and her husband may annul it” (Numbers 30:14), that which has entered the category of upholding, has entered the category of annulment; but that which has not entered the category of upholding, has not entered the category of annulment.

If a man says to his wife, “All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place behold, they are upheld,” he has not said anything. [If he said: All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place], behold, they are annulled,”: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are annulled; The Sages say: they are not annulled. Said Rabbi Eliezer: if he can annul vows which have already had the force of a prohibition, surely he can annul those which have not had the force of prohibition! They said to him: behold, it is said, “Her husband may uphold it, and her husband may annul it” (Numbers 30:14), that which has entered the category of upholding, has entered the category of annulment; but that which has not entered the category of upholding, has not entered the category of annulment.

If a man says to his wife, “All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place behold, they are upheld,” he has not said anything. [If he said: All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place], behold, they are annulled,”: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are annulled; The Sages say: they are not annulled. Said Rabbi Eliezer: if he can annul vows which have already had the force of a prohibition, surely he can annul those which have not had the force of prohibition! They said to him: behold, it is said, “Her husband may uphold it, and her husband may annul it” (Numbers 30:14), that which has entered the category of upholding, has entered the category of annulment; but that which has not entered the category of upholding, has not entered the category of annulment.

The annulment of vows is the whole day. This may result in a stringency or in a leniency. How is this so? If she vowed on the eve of the Sabbath, he can annul on the eve of the sabbath and on the Sabbath day until nightfall. If she vowed just before nightfall, he can annul only until nightfall: for if night fell and he had not annulled it, he can no longer annul it.

If she vows, “Konam these figs and grapes which I taste”, and he [the husband] confirms [the vow] in respect of figs, the whole [vow] is confirmed; If he annuls it in respect of figs, it is not annulled, unless he annuls in respect of grapes too. If she vows, “Konam the figs that I taste and these grapes that I taste”, they are two distinct vows.

[If the husband declares,] “I knew that there were vows, but I did not know that they could be annulled”, he may annul them [now]. [But if he says:] “I knew that I could annul them, but I did not know that this was a vow,” Rabbi Meir says: he cannot annul it, But the Sages say: he can annul.

“But every vow of a widow and of a divorcee… shall be binding upon her” (Numbers 30:9). How is this so? If she said, “Behold, I will be a nazirite after thirty days”, even if she married within the thirty days, he cannot annul it. If she vows while in her husband’s domain, he can annul [the vow] for her. How is this so? If she said, “Behold, I will be a nazirite after thirty days,” [and her husband annulled it], even though she was widowed or divorced within the thirty days, it is annulled. If she vowed on one day, and he divorced her on the same day and took her back on the same day, he cannot annul it. This is the general rule: once she has gone into her own domain [even] for a single hour, he cannot annul.

“But every vow of a widow and of a divorcee… shall be binding upon her” (Numbers 30:9). How is this so? If she said, “Behold, I will be a nazirite after thirty days”, even if she married within the thirty days, he cannot annul it. If she vows while in her husband’s domain, he can annul [the vow] for her. How is this so? If she said, “Behold, I will be a nazirite after thirty days,” [and her husband annulled it], even though she was widowed or divorced within the thirty days, it is annulled. If she vowed on one day, and he divorced her on the same day and took her back on the same day, he cannot annul it. This is the general rule: once she has gone into her own domain [even] for a single hour, he cannot annul.

If a woman takes a nazirite vow and then drinks wine or is defiled by a corpse, she receives forty [lashes]. If her husband annuls [her vow] and she did not know that he annulled it, and she drinks wine or is defiled by a corpse, she does not receive the forty [lashes]. Rabbi Judah says: even though she does not receive the forty [lashes] she should receive lashes for disobedience.

If [a nazirite] on whose behalf one kind of blood has been sprinkled becomes unclean, Rabbi Eliezer says: everything is annulled. But the Sages say: he should bring his remaining sacrifices after purification. They said to him: it happened that Miriam the Tadmorite had one kind of blood sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was dangerously ill. She went and found her dead and the sages told her to offer her remaining sacrifices after purification.

If man sends a get to his wife and then catches up with the messenger, or sends a messenger after the original messenger, and says to him, “The get which I gave you is annulled”, then it is annulled. If the husband arrives at his wife before [the messenger] or sends a messenger to her and says, “The get which I sent to you is annulled”, then it is annulled. Once the get has reached her hand, he cannot annul it.

If man sends a get to his wife and then catches up with the messenger, or sends a messenger after the original messenger, and says to him, “The get which I gave you is annulled”, then it is annulled. If the husband arrives at his wife before [the messenger] or sends a messenger to her and says, “The get which I sent to you is annulled”, then it is annulled. Once the get has reached her hand, he cannot annul it.

If man sends a get to his wife and then catches up with the messenger, or sends a messenger after the original messenger, and says to him, “The get which I gave you is annulled”, then it is annulled. If the husband arrives at his wife before [the messenger] or sends a messenger to her and says, “The get which I sent to you is annulled”, then it is annulled. Once the get has reached her hand, he cannot annul it.

If man sends a get to his wife and then catches up with the messenger, or sends a messenger after the original messenger, and says to him, “The get which I gave you is annulled”, then it is annulled. If the husband arrives at his wife before [the messenger] or sends a messenger to her and says, “The get which I sent to you is annulled”, then it is annulled. Once the get has reached her hand, he cannot annul it.

How does one annul [an asherah]? If [a pagan] pruned or trimmed it, removing from it a stick or twig or even a leaf, behold it is annulled. If he smoothed it out for its own sake, it is prohibited; but if not for its own sake, it is permitted.

The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately; but if it belonged to a Jew it is not prohibited until it is worshipped. An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater. He who annuls an idol annuls the things that pertain to it. If he only annulled the things that pertain to it these are permitted but the idol itself is prohibited.

How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it. If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled. If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, but the sages say that he has not annulled it.

How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it. If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled. If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, but the sages say that he has not annulled it.

How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it. If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled. If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, but the sages say that he has not annulled it.

How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it. If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled. If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, but the sages say that he has not annulled it.

If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt. If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rebbi Isaac’s street. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rebbi Joḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the dwellers in the alley be in error, lest they be intentional. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion did change. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Joḥanan annulled his rights. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rebbi Joḥanan and he carried. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this be so then the haters of Rebbi Joḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted.

It was stated: If he slaughtered outside he is liable, if he took the fistful inside he is not liable. If he collected coals and burned the incense when the blood was spilled, he has to bring another bull and enter with its blood. If the blood was spilled before he burned the incense, it is an invalid collection of coals and he has to start again collecting coals. If there was a doubt whether the blood was spilled before he burned the incense or after he burned the incense, you cannot bring another bull and enter with its blood since I am saying that the blood was spilled before he burned the incense and the collection of coals was invalid, and he has to start again collecting coals. You cannot do this since I am saying that the blood was spilled after he burned the incense and the collection of coals was valid, and he is liable because of unnecessary entry. The service has to stop. You find to say, the services of that day are annulled.

Three scrolls were found in the Temple courtyard, the Meone scroll, the Zaatute scroll, the hee scroll. In one they found written me`ôn is the preexisting God, but in two was written me`ônāh is the preexisting God. They confirmed the two and annulled the one. In one they found written he sent the za`tûtē of the Children of Israel but in two was written he sent the na`rē of the Children of Israel. They confirmed the two and annulled the one. In one they found written nine היא, but in two they found eleven היא. They confirmed the two and annulled the one.

Three scrolls were found in the Temple courtyard, the Meone scroll, the Zaatute scroll, the hee scroll. In one they found written me`ôn is the preexisting God, but in two was written me`ônāh is the preexisting God. They confirmed the two and annulled the one. In one they found written he sent the za`tûtē of the Children of Israel but in two was written he sent the na`rē of the Children of Israel. They confirmed the two and annulled the one. In one they found written nine היא, but in two they found eleven היא. They confirmed the two and annulled the one.

Three scrolls were found in the Temple courtyard, the Meone scroll, the Zaatute scroll, the hee scroll. In one they found written me`ôn is the preexisting God, but in two was written me`ônāh is the preexisting God. They confirmed the two and annulled the one. In one they found written he sent the za`tûtē of the Children of Israel but in two was written he sent the na`rē of the Children of Israel. They confirmed the two and annulled the one. In one they found written nine היא, but in two they found eleven היא. They confirmed the two and annulled the one.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second, the second can be used for the first. Where do we hold? If he said, “I am a nazir twice,” a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled. If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. But we must hold that he said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” If he said, “these are for nezirut.” But if he said, “these are for my nezirut; those are for the other nezirut,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he finished the first nezirut, as soon as he brought a sacrifice and shaved, the first is credited for the second. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees: not unless he brings all his sacrifices, following the rabbis; but following Rebbi Simeon even if he brings only one sacrifice. If he dedicated both together, he has only one in his hand. If he dedicated each of them separately or brought each of them for the other, he did not acquit himself [of his obligation]. This means that as far as holiness goes, they became holy. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,” i. e., that his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. It is different, because he still is in nezirut. One understands the second for the first. The first for the second? Rebbi Jehudah said, this supports Rebbi Eleazar. But did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa command the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees; not unless he brings all his sacrifices. They wanted to say, following the rabbis. But here, we hold with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, did we not argue about one who said, “I am a nazir”? He really should be a nazir only once. You were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice. Is it not enough that you were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice, that now you say, he has nothing in his hands?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vowed two neziriot,” etc. If he finished his first period of nezirut and started to lean on the second, when they did not find an opening for the first while they found an opening for the second, the second can be used for the first. Where do we hold? If he said, “I am a nazir twice,” a vow which is partially annulled is totally annulled. If he said, “I am a nazir for these 30 days and those 30 days,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. But we must hold that he said, “I am a nazir and nazir.” If he said, “these are for nezirut.” But if he said, “these are for my nezirut; those are for the other nezirut,” in this case the second cannot be used for the first. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he finished the first nezirut, as soon as he brought a sacrifice and shaved, the first is credited for the second. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees: not unless he brings all his sacrifices, following the rabbis; but following Rebbi Simeon even if he brings only one sacrifice. If he dedicated both together, he has only one in his hand. If he dedicated each of them separately or brought each of them for the other, he did not acquit himself [of his obligation]. This means that as far as holiness goes, they became holy. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “His sacrifice to the Eternal for his nezirut,” i. e., that his vow of nazir should precede his sacrifice, rather than that his sacrifice precede his vow of nazir. It is different, because he still is in nezirut. One understands the second for the first. The first for the second? Rebbi Jehudah said, this supports Rebbi Eleazar. But did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa command the colleagues: If you hear anything formulated by Rebbi Eleazar, you should know that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees; not unless he brings all his sacrifices. They wanted to say, following the rabbis. But here, we hold with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Explain it for his nezirut and the nezirut he pledged for his son. In that, the second can be used for the first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, did we not argue about one who said, “I am a nazir”? He really should be a nazir only once. You were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice. Is it not enough that you were severe with him and obligated him to be a nazir twice, that now you say, he has nothing in his hands?

MISHNAH: If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife and caught up with the agent, or he sent another agent after him and said: the bill of divorce I gave you is annulled, it is annulled. If he met his wife or he sent an agent to her and said: the bill of divorce I sent to you is annulled, it is annulled. After the bill of divorce came into her possession, he no longer can annul it.

MISHNAH: If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife and caught up with the agent, or he sent another agent after him and said: the bill of divorce I gave you is annulled, it is annulled. If he met his wife or he sent an agent to her and said: the bill of divorce I sent to you is annulled, it is annulled. After the bill of divorce came into her possession, he no longer can annul it.

MISHNAH: If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife and caught up with the agent, or he sent another agent after him and said: the bill of divorce I gave you is annulled, it is annulled. If he met his wife or he sent an agent to her and said: the bill of divorce I sent to you is annulled, it is annulled. After the bill of divorce came into her possession, he no longer can annul it.

MISHNAH: If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife and caught up with the agent, or he sent another agent after him and said: the bill of divorce I gave you is annulled, it is annulled. If he met his wife or he sent an agent to her and said: the bill of divorce I sent to you is annulled, it is annulled. After the bill of divorce came into her possession, he no longer can annul it.

“Because of the public good.” They say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Some say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not remain anchored. He who said, that she should not remain anchored, [is afraid that] she turns out to be anchored if she thought that he annulled when he did not annul. He who said, that she should not risk bastardy, [is afraid that] her children will be bastards if she thought that he did not annul when he annulled, she goes and marries without a bill of divorce. If she thought that he annulled when he did not annul, another man comes and marries her preliminarily; the preliminary marriage is valid but she thinks it is invalid. She waits until her first husband dies, then she goes and marries [another man]; the result is that her children will be bastards. Rebbi Mana said, I went with a caravan and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Rav Huna said, even the one who said that she should not remain anchored also agrees that she should not risk bastardy.

“Because of the public good.” They say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Some say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not remain anchored. He who said, that she should not remain anchored, [is afraid that] she turns out to be anchored if she thought that he annulled when he did not annul. He who said, that she should not risk bastardy, [is afraid that] her children will be bastards if she thought that he did not annul when he annulled, she goes and marries without a bill of divorce. If she thought that he annulled when he did not annul, another man comes and marries her preliminarily; the preliminary marriage is valid but she thinks it is invalid. She waits until her first husband dies, then she goes and marries [another man]; the result is that her children will be bastards. Rebbi Mana said, I went with a caravan and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Rav Huna said, even the one who said that she should not remain anchored also agrees that she should not risk bastardy.

“Because of the public good.” They say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Some say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not remain anchored. He who said, that she should not remain anchored, [is afraid that] she turns out to be anchored if she thought that he annulled when he did not annul. He who said, that she should not risk bastardy, [is afraid that] her children will be bastards if she thought that he did not annul when he annulled, she goes and marries without a bill of divorce. If she thought that he annulled when he did not annul, another man comes and marries her preliminarily; the preliminary marriage is valid but she thinks it is invalid. She waits until her first husband dies, then she goes and marries [another man]; the result is that her children will be bastards. Rebbi Mana said, I went with a caravan and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Rav Huna said, even the one who said that she should not remain anchored also agrees that she should not risk bastardy.

If he transgressed and annulled? Let us hear from the following: “If he annulled it is annulled, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he can neither annul it nor add to his condition.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly. What is the reason of Rebbi? It is the word of the Torah that he has the power to annul but they said, he shall not annul. Can their word uproot the words of the Torah? But is it not from the Torah that one may [give as heave] olives for oil and grapes for wine, but because of robbing the tribe they said not only that one may not give heave [in this way] but if he transgressed and gave, his heave is not heave. Rebbi Oshaia bar Abba said to Rebbi Yudan the Prince: Who could tell exactly what your ancestor meant?

If he transgressed and annulled? Let us hear from the following: “If he annulled it is annulled, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he can neither annul it nor add to his condition.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly. What is the reason of Rebbi? It is the word of the Torah that he has the power to annul but they said, he shall not annul. Can their word uproot the words of the Torah? But is it not from the Torah that one may [give as heave] olives for oil and grapes for wine, but because of robbing the tribe they said not only that one may not give heave [in this way] but if he transgressed and gave, his heave is not heave. Rebbi Oshaia bar Abba said to Rebbi Yudan the Prince: Who could tell exactly what your ancestor meant?

If he transgressed and annulled? Let us hear from the following: “If he annulled it is annulled, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he can neither annul it nor add to his condition.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly. What is the reason of Rebbi? It is the word of the Torah that he has the power to annul but they said, he shall not annul. Can their word uproot the words of the Torah? But is it not from the Torah that one may [give as heave] olives for oil and grapes for wine, but because of robbing the tribe they said not only that one may not give heave [in this way] but if he transgressed and gave, his heave is not heave. Rebbi Oshaia bar Abba said to Rebbi Yudan the Prince: Who could tell exactly what your ancestor meant?

Rebbi Abba bar Cahana and Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement: there was such a case and the father came and removed her from the bridal chamber. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua: He had an indication that Rebbi Joshua ben Levi disagreed with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. But this does not disagree. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said there, she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings, so Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said here, she is not empowered to marry herself off and let her father lose her earnings. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana and Rebbi Jacob bar Idi came in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If she was preliminarily married without agreement and was being definitively married without agreement: there was such a case and the father came and annulled her preliminary marriage.

HALAKHAH: “Cheating is four obols,” etc. Rav said, this is the rate; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not the rate. Rav said, if somebody trades on condition that the rules of cheating not apply to him, the rules of cheating do apply to him. Rebbi Levi stated: Cheating applies to a peruṭah, cheating can be by a peruṭah. But what is the status of cheating? It was stated: The item was acquired, he returns the overcharge, the words of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the sale is annulled.

If he sold him what was worth five for six; [the buyer] did not have time to ask around until it appreciated to be worth seven. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Since the sale is annulled for one, it also is annulled for the other. There, we have stated: “Four situations in sales. If he sold him high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer can annul the transaction. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller can annul the transaction.” [Therefore, the buyer cannot annul the transaction.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows this Tanna: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”.

If he sold him what was worth five for six; [the buyer] did not have time to ask around until it appreciated to be worth seven. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Since the sale is annulled for one, it also is annulled for the other. There, we have stated: “Four situations in sales. If he sold him high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer can annul the transaction. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller can annul the transaction.” [Therefore, the buyer cannot annul the transaction.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows this Tanna: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”.

One verse says, they abandoned their idols; David and his men carried them away. But another verse says, David gave orders and they were burned in the.fire. Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta and the rabbis. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥalafta says, what was of metal, David and his men carried them away. And what was of wood, David gave orders and they were burned in the fire. But the rabbis say, what Itai from Gat annulled, David and his men carried them away. And what he did not annul, David gave orders and they were burned in fire. How does Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi] Ḥalafta confirm David and his men carried them away? They took them by their rims.

MISHNAH: A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped. A Gentile is able to annul his idol and that of a Jew; but a Jew cannot annul the idol of a Gentile. If one annulled an idol he annulled its appurtenances; if he annulled its appurtenances the appurtenances are annulled but it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped. A Gentile is able to annul his idol and that of a Jew; but a Jew cannot annul the idol of a Gentile. If one annulled an idol he annulled its appurtenances; if he annulled its appurtenances the appurtenances are annulled but it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped. A Gentile is able to annul his idol and that of a Jew; but a Jew cannot annul the idol of a Gentile. If one annulled an idol he annulled its appurtenances; if he annulled its appurtenances the appurtenances are annulled but it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped. A Gentile is able to annul his idol and that of a Jew; but a Jew cannot annul the idol of a Gentile. If one annulled an idol he annulled its appurtenances; if he annulled its appurtenances the appurtenances are annulled but it is forbidden.

“A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” therefore it can be annulled. “But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” therefore it cannot be annulled. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is no “therefore”, only “it cannot be annulled or it can be annulled”. “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” as it is written: you certainly shall destroy.“But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” as it is written, cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, etc., when he puts it up. But some are switching this. “A Jew’s idol is immediately forbidden,” for it is written, cursed be the man. “But a Gentile’s only when it was worshipped,” as it is written, you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel understood it from the following: If you inherited it when it was a god you shall burn it in fire, otherwise of which you will inherit their gods. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai understood it from the following: You should not covet silver or gold for them. You cannot covet and take, but others can covet and you are taking.

“A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” therefore it can be annulled. “But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” therefore it cannot be annulled. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is no “therefore”, only “it cannot be annulled or it can be annulled”. “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” as it is written: you certainly shall destroy.“But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” as it is written, cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, etc., when he puts it up. But some are switching this. “A Jew’s idol is immediately forbidden,” for it is written, cursed be the man. “But a Gentile’s only when it was worshipped,” as it is written, you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel understood it from the following: If you inherited it when it was a god you shall burn it in fire, otherwise of which you will inherit their gods. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai understood it from the following: You should not covet silver or gold for them. You cannot covet and take, but others can covet and you are taking.

“A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” therefore it can be annulled. “But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” therefore it cannot be annulled. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is no “therefore”, only “it cannot be annulled or it can be annulled”. “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” as it is written: you certainly shall destroy.“But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” as it is written, cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, etc., when he puts it up. But some are switching this. “A Jew’s idol is immediately forbidden,” for it is written, cursed be the man. “But a Gentile’s only when it was worshipped,” as it is written, you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel understood it from the following: If you inherited it when it was a god you shall burn it in fire, otherwise of which you will inherit their gods. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai understood it from the following: You should not covet silver or gold for them. You cannot covet and take, but others can covet and you are taking.

“A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” therefore it can be annulled. “But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” therefore it cannot be annulled. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is no “therefore”, only “it cannot be annulled or it can be annulled”. “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” as it is written: you certainly shall destroy.“But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” as it is written, cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, etc., when he puts it up. But some are switching this. “A Jew’s idol is immediately forbidden,” for it is written, cursed be the man. “But a Gentile’s only when it was worshipped,” as it is written, you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel understood it from the following: If you inherited it when it was a god you shall burn it in fire, otherwise of which you will inherit their gods. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai understood it from the following: You should not covet silver or gold for them. You cannot covet and take, but others can covet and you are taking.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Rebbi was sitting and teaching his son Rebbi Simeon. The Gentile annuls his own idol and that of his neighbor. He said to him, when you still were in full mental powers you quoted Tannaim stating that a Gentile annuls his own idol and that of a Jew. He answered him, no, my son. An idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled. And it was stated so: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, an idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled.” Rav stated in the name of the reason of this Tanna: Cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, forever.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Rebbi was sitting and teaching his son Rebbi Simeon. The Gentile annuls his own idol and that of his neighbor. He said to him, when you still were in full mental powers you quoted Tannaim stating that a Gentile annuls his own idol and that of a Jew. He answered him, no, my son. An idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled. And it was stated so: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, an idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled.” Rav stated in the name of the reason of this Tanna: Cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, forever.

Bar Qappara found a ring with an idol. An Aramean youth was running after him. He was hitting him, cursing him, and told him, spit on it! He did not accept. Urinate on it! He did not accept. This implies that a Non-Jew annuls his own and another person’s idols under duress, on condition that he knows the nature of this idol. An idol which had been worshipped by a Jew can never be annulled. Could it not be like an idol which was abandoned by its worshippers and by that being annulled? Rebbi Ze`ira said, anything which becomes annulled by itself, a Jew can annul. But anything which does not become annulled by itself, a Jew cannot annul.

Bar Qappara found a ring with an idol. An Aramean youth was running after him. He was hitting him, cursing him, and told him, spit on it! He did not accept. Urinate on it! He did not accept. This implies that a Non-Jew annuls his own and another person’s idols under duress, on condition that he knows the nature of this idol. An idol which had been worshipped by a Jew can never be annulled. Could it not be like an idol which was abandoned by its worshippers and by that being annulled? Rebbi Ze`ira said, anything which becomes annulled by itself, a Jew can annul. But anything which does not become annulled by itself, a Jew cannot annul.

Bar Qappara found a ring with an idol. An Aramean youth was running after him. He was hitting him, cursing him, and told him, spit on it! He did not accept. Urinate on it! He did not accept. This implies that a Non-Jew annuls his own and another person’s idols under duress, on condition that he knows the nature of this idol. An idol which had been worshipped by a Jew can never be annulled. Could it not be like an idol which was abandoned by its worshippers and by that being annulled? Rebbi Ze`ira said, anything which becomes annulled by itself, a Jew can annul. But anything which does not become annulled by itself, a Jew cannot annul.

Bar Qappara found a ring with an idol. An Aramean youth was running after him. He was hitting him, cursing him, and told him, spit on it! He did not accept. Urinate on it! He did not accept. This implies that a Non-Jew annuls his own and another person’s idols under duress, on condition that he knows the nature of this idol. An idol which had been worshipped by a Jew can never be annulled. Could it not be like an idol which was abandoned by its worshippers and by that being annulled? Rebbi Ze`ira said, anything which becomes annulled by itself, a Jew can annul. But anything which does not become annulled by itself, a Jew cannot annul.

Rav said, a pedestal is not annulled. Therefore if one annulled it it is annulled. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There he says, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so? Here if he burned incense, there if he did not burn incense. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

Rav said, a pedestal is not annulled. Therefore if one annulled it it is annulled. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There he says, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so? Here if he burned incense, there if he did not burn incense. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

Rav said, a pedestal is not annulled. Therefore if one annulled it it is annulled. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There he says, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so? Here if he burned incense, there if he did not burn incense. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

Rav said, a pedestal is not annulled. Therefore its appurtenances are annulled. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav, if the procession was using another way, and here he says so? There if he burned incense, here if he did not burn incense. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

Rav said, a pedestal is not annulled. Therefore its appurtenances are annulled. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav, if the procession was using another way, and here he says so? There if he burned incense, here if he did not burn incense. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a stele is a monolith, an altar has many stones. Ḥizqiah said, a stele is annulled once it is damaged; of an altar one has to damage each single stone. A baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him: If you tore down the altar, leave it alone; if you broke the stele, leave it alone . Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia; Rebbi Ḥiyya (Rebbi) Abba, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav Hoshaia: When He turns all stones of the altar like smashed pieces of chalk, persecute them until you eliminated its egg from the world. But here, if you broke a stele, leave it alone; if you tore down an altar, leave it alone.

MISHNAH: How does one annul it? If he cut off the top of its earlobe, the tip of its nose, the tip of its finger. If he disfigured it even though nothing is missing, he annulled it. If he spat in its face, urinated before it, dragged it, threw excrement on it, this is not annulled. If he sold or mortgaged it, Rebbi says it is annulled, but the Sages say it is not annulled.

MISHNAH: How does one annul it? If he cut off the top of its earlobe, the tip of its nose, the tip of its finger. If he disfigured it even though nothing is missing, he annulled it. If he spat in its face, urinated before it, dragged it, threw excrement on it, this is not annulled. If he sold or mortgaged it, Rebbi says it is annulled, but the Sages say it is not annulled.

MISHNAH: How does one annul it? If he cut off the top of its earlobe, the tip of its nose, the tip of its finger. If he disfigured it even though nothing is missing, he annulled it. If he spat in its face, urinated before it, dragged it, threw excrement on it, this is not annulled. If he sold or mortgaged it, Rebbi says it is annulled, but the Sages say it is not annulled.

MISHNAH: How does one annul it? If he cut off the top of its earlobe, the tip of its nose, the tip of its finger. If he disfigured it even though nothing is missing, he annulled it. If he spat in its face, urinated before it, dragged it, threw excrement on it, this is not annulled. If he sold or mortgaged it, Rebbi says it is annulled, but the Sages say it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace. But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled.

HALAKHAH: “An idol which was abandoned by its worshippers,” etc. It was stated: The war of Joshua is forbidden, similar to the war of Joshua is permitted. The war of David is permitted, like the war of David is forbidden. The war of Joshua is forbidden, as it is written, for certainly you should ban them. Similar to the war of Joshua is permitted, for it is a short time. The war of David is permitted, what Itai from Gat annulled. Like the war of David is forbidden, for it is permanent.

R. Eleazar also said in the name of R. Jose b. Zimra : Whoever imposes a fast upon himself on the Sabbath, the decree of seventy years is annulled for him ; but for all that the penalty for [denying himself] the delight of the Sabbath will be exacted from him.

"And Moses besought [wayyehal] the Lord his God" (ibid. v. 11). R. Eleazar said : This teaches that Moses stood in prayer before the Holy One, blessed be He, until he wore Him out [hehelehu]. Raba said : [Moses besought Him] until He annulled His vow for him ; for it is written here wayyehal "and he besought," and elsewhere it is written, "he shall not break [yahel] his word" (Num. 30:3) ; and a teacher has said : [He who makes a vow] cannot break it himself, but others can break it on his behalf.

"Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel, Thy servants, to whom Thou didst swear by Thine own self" (ibid. v. 13). What means "By Thine own self" ? R. Eleazar said : Moses spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Lord of the universe ! If Thou hadst sworn to them by heaven and earth, I might have said that as heaven and earth will be annulled, so will Thine oath be annulled ; but now that Thou hast sworn to them by Thy great name, as Thy great name lives and endures for all eternity, so must Thine oath endure for all eternity."

"Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel, Thy servants, to whom Thou didst swear by Thine own self" (ibid. v. 13). What means "By Thine own self" ? R. Eleazar said : Moses spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Lord of the universe ! If Thou hadst sworn to them by heaven and earth, I might have said that as heaven and earth will be annulled, so will Thine oath be annulled ; but now that Thou hast sworn to them by Thy great name, as Thy great name lives and endures for all eternity, so must Thine oath endure for all eternity."

But if he cut them for food, what is the reason [for the view] of the rabbis? And if you will answer that the rabbis are of the opinion that since he changed his mind about them [to use them] for skhakh, his original intention becomes annulled, [it may be objected], does then one's intention become annulled in such a case? Have we not learned: All vessels

But if he cut them for food, what is the reason [for the view] of the rabbis? And if you will answer that the rabbis are of the opinion that since he changed his mind about them [to use them] for skhakh, his original intention becomes annulled, [it may be objected], does then one's intention become annulled in such a case? Have we not learned: All vessels

They dispute on [the question of] the annulment of a roof. One master holds the opinion that by this means it becomes annulled, while the other master holds the opinion that by this means it does not become annulled.

They dispute on [the question of] the annulment of a roof. One master holds the opinion that by this means it becomes annulled, while the other master holds the opinion that by this means it does not become annulled.

will apply here. There the first of Nisan was mentioned to extend the prohibition to the day preceding. Here the festival is included in order to extend the prohibition to the day following. With whose view does this tally? With that of R. Jose, who said that the prohibition includes "both the preceding and the following day?" If so, why base the inclusion of the twenty-ninth of Adar on the fact that it is the day preceding the first of Nisan, on which day the Daily Offering was established, when the prohibition might have been derived from the fact that it follows upon the twenty-eighth of Adar (which was likewise proclaimed a holiday) as we read: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good news reached the Jews that they were no longer to be restrained from the study of the Torah? [It had namely happened that the wicked government issued a decree against Israel, that they should not study the Torah nor circumcize their children, and that they should profane the Sabbath, whereupon Judah b. Shammu'a and his colleagues took counsel with a prominent lady with whom all the noblemen of Rome associated, who advised them to make an appeal during the night; they made the appeal during the night, saying: "O Heavens! Are we not your brethren, are we not the sons of one father and one mother? Wherein do we differ from all other nations and tongues, that you issue such cruel decrees against us?", whereupon the decrees were annulled and the day was declared a holiday.] Said 'Abbayi in reply to the above: The twenty-eighth of Adar would be of no avail for the last day if it were a full month. R. 'Ashi said, the same thing would be true if Adar was deficient, for on a day following immediately upon a holiday only fasting is forbidden, while mourning is allowed, whereas the twenty-ninth of Adar, being placed between two holidays, has been made as important as if it were itself a holiday.

The City of Jerusalem was plowed over. This is a tradition. We read in a Baraita: When the wicked Tyrant (Titus Annius) Rufus plowed the site of the Temple Hall, Rabban Gamaliel was condemned to death. A certain general then appeared and, standing up in the school-house, said, "The man with the nose is wanted! the man with the nose is wanted!" When Rabban Gamaliel heard the call, he hid himself from the Romans, but the general called on him secretly and said to him: "If I save you will you bring me to the future world?" "Yes!" replied R. Gamaliel. "Swear it unto me!" and R. Gamaliel swore it unto him. The Roman thereupon went up to the roof, threw himself down and died. The decree against R. Gamaliel was then annulled, because there was a custom that if a decree was issued and one of those who signed it died, the decree was annulled. A heavenly voice then came forth declaring that the general was sure to have a share in the life of the world to come.

The City of Jerusalem was plowed over. This is a tradition. We read in a Baraita: When the wicked Tyrant (Titus Annius) Rufus plowed the site of the Temple Hall, Rabban Gamaliel was condemned to death. A certain general then appeared and, standing up in the school-house, said, "The man with the nose is wanted! the man with the nose is wanted!" When Rabban Gamaliel heard the call, he hid himself from the Romans, but the general called on him secretly and said to him: "If I save you will you bring me to the future world?" "Yes!" replied R. Gamaliel. "Swear it unto me!" and R. Gamaliel swore it unto him. The Roman thereupon went up to the roof, threw himself down and died. The decree against R. Gamaliel was then annulled, because there was a custom that if a decree was issued and one of those who signed it died, the decree was annulled. A heavenly voice then came forth declaring that the general was sure to have a share in the life of the world to come.

This is what we mean [by our question]: Since all these dates were laid down by the Men of the Great Assembly, for if you should [deny this and say] that the Men of the Great Assembly laid down only the fourteenth and fifteenth, [is it possible that] the [later] Rabbis should have come and annulled an enactment made by the Men of the Great Assembly. Haven’t we learned: One court cannot annul the rulings of another court unless it is superior to it in number and in wisdom’?

Rather it follows the following Tannaim: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Why did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned they found these cities [still walled] and sanctified them; the others were annulled when the land’s [sanctity] was annulled. Thus he holds that the first holiness sanctified it for its time but not for the future.

Rather it follows the following Tannaim: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Why did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned they found these cities [still walled] and sanctified them; the others were annulled when the land’s [sanctity] was annulled. Thus he holds that the first holiness sanctified it for its time but not for the future.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, A ban made conditionally needs to be annulled. From where [is this derived]? From Yehuda. That the Torah says (Genesis 43, 9), "If you do not bring him back to me etc.". And Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rebbi Yonason, What is the meaning of the verse (Deuteronomy 33, 6), "Let Reuvan live and not die etc. And this is for Yehuda?!"?

Rather Rav Shimi miNardeah proposed, in a case where he publicly made a vow [against marring her]. This is good according to the opinion that a vow made in public can not be annulled. But according to the opinion that [such a vow] can be annulled, what can be said? Where it was made with the consent of the public. That Ameimar said, The halacha is that a vow made publicly can be annulled, but a vow made with the consent of the public can not be annulled.

Rather Rav Shimi miNardeah proposed, in a case where he publicly made a vow [against marring her]. This is good according to the opinion that a vow made in public can not be annulled. But according to the opinion that [such a vow] can be annulled, what can be said? Where it was made with the consent of the public. That Ameimar said, The halacha is that a vow made publicly can be annulled, but a vow made with the consent of the public can not be annulled.

Rather Rav Shimi miNardeah proposed, in a case where he publicly made a vow [against marring her]. This is good according to the opinion that a vow made in public can not be annulled. But according to the opinion that [such a vow] can be annulled, what can be said? Where it was made with the consent of the public. That Ameimar said, The halacha is that a vow made publicly can be annulled, but a vow made with the consent of the public can not be annulled.